# I miss CG



## mrtomsmith (May 17, 2008)

So, according to the sneak peeks, alignment is in 4e, but it's a simple linear spectrum: LG, G, un, E, CE. Simplifying it like this disturbs me. One of the great things about D&D, one of the things that really opened my mind when I read the books as a kid, was the open spectrum of morality. Lawful Evil is a great way to define a truth about the world that opens up a wide variety of interesting roleplaying scenarios.

I'd been fine with the earlier rumors of minimal alignment in 4e, as I respect the difficulties of making alignment work in a RPG environment. Players don't abide by their character's alignment, and they shouldn't really be forced to. Having books or cosmology full of LN and LG beasties doesn't really help in a game where combat and conflict are key. But if you're going to minimize it, don't remove the best parts.

So yes, I'll be house ruling it in my campaign. But I feel bad for all those 10 year olds who aren't going to get their worldview expanded like I did.

My name is Tom, and I'm Chaotic Good.


----------



## Cirex (May 17, 2008)

I suspect that alignments like NE and LE will be inside "Evil", while CG and NG inside "Good". We need to check the full description of each alignment. 

However, alignments, at least in my case, are very secondary. I only ask my players to write an alignment if they feel like it, if not, nothing wrong happens. Me, as DM, got enough knowledge to see which alignment their characters are, even if they don't think about it.


----------



## Simm (May 17, 2008)

Forget CG where's my LE. I demand my LE without it how can I have my ruthless yet honourable tyrants. You never realize how much you love somthing until it's gone


----------



## Stogoe (May 17, 2008)

Ruthless yet honorable seems more Unaligned to me, personally.


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 17, 2008)

It's a pity the whole alignment system wasn't ditched, really.

At least it no longer has a mechanical component, so I don't have to worry about it messing with my games and causing silly player arguments.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

I was gone for a long time but I'm back since last summer.


----------



## Yaezakura (May 17, 2008)

I am rather disappointed to see Law and Chaos reintroduced at all. Let alone in a way that seems to suggest being Lawful Good is somehow _better_ than simply being Good, and implying Chaos is the epitome of Evil.

This is the first thing about 4E that's really made me think I'll need to house rule something.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 17, 2008)

Simm said:
			
		

> Forget CG where's my LE. I demand my LE without it how can I have my ruthless yet honourable tyrants. You never realize how much you love somthing until it's gone




So play someone Evil who obeys the laws and believes in "the system"

as far as Chaotic Good goes, it's basically unaligned with good leanings, or basically good with some mental problems.  

I really don't see why you need a specific alignment to exist to play the character you want to play. (Personally I've rarely used alignments, so what do I know?)

Fitz


----------



## mrtomsmith (May 17, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> as far as Chaotic Good goes, it's basically unaligned with good leanings, or basically good with some mental problems.
> 
> Fitz




Exactly. I loved that D&D helped people see that good and mental problems work welll together. Implying that "Lawful = Good ++" isn't nearly as fun. Old alignments expanded the possibility space, new alignments are boring.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 17, 2008)

You missed my point.  Play a character who's Good and give him mental problems (unrelated to alignment) Why would that be hard? Why would you need a label for it?

Fitz


----------



## Bishmon (May 17, 2008)

I don't think this is much of an issue, especially considering most, if not all, alignment-dependent mechanics have been taken out.

What I don't understand is why this bothered with this alignment change at all. It just seems pointless.


----------



## Tervin (May 17, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> You missed my point.  Play a character who's Good and give him mental problems (unrelated to alignment) Why would that be hard? Why would you need a label for it?
> 
> Fitz




I think I am missing a joke here. Or, does chaotic really imply mental problems to you? 

In that case, scary...


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

Most characters I've played with mental problems have been Lawful.

This is why old alignment is hed asplode.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 17, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> In that case, scary...




Why would you think it's scary to suggest that one (of many) ways to play Chaotic Good is to be a basically good person who is otherwise off his nut?

There are many other ways to play crazy as well.  Like OCD lawful, as perhaps suggested above.

Fitz


----------



## Jack99 (May 17, 2008)

Alignment sucks. They should have died and gone to hell. At least some are gone now. Christ I hate CN especially. Talk about a license to act like an lunatic.


----------



## Kvantum (May 17, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Christ I hate CN especially. Talk about a license to act like an lunatic.



And how much better is unaligned? "Whee! I don't even have to follow Chaos if I don't feel like it!"


----------



## Mercule (May 17, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> as far as Chaotic Good goes, it's basically unaligned with good leanings, or basically good with some mental problems.



Strange.  I always figured it was LG that represented mental problems.

That difference in perception, more than anything else, is why I'm nervous about the new alignments.  Anyone who thinks adding order to good somehow makes it more good is not speaking the same language as me.  Conversely, I find it self-evident that adding order to evil makes it more evil.  Adding chaos to evil just makes it squirmy.


----------



## Tervin (May 17, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> Why would you think it's scary to suggest that one (of many) ways to play Chaotic Good is to be a basically good person who is otherwise off his nut?
> 
> There are many other ways to play crazy as well.  Like OCD lawful, as perhaps suggested above.
> 
> Fitz




Sorry, must have misunderstood. I thought you meant that was the standard way.

Of course one way to play a chaotic alignment is to be a bit crazy. Still almost all chaotic characters I have created have been sane, if perhaps with an outlook that not every person of the modern society shares.

To me chaotic always meant more of individualistic and less of wacky. Or on a more analytic level, that they made decisions depending on each individual situation rather than on a pattern they had chosen.

Personally I always preferred the Law vs Chaos conflict to the Good vs Evil, as it is not so obvious what is right and wrong.


----------



## zoroaster100 (May 17, 2008)

I am very pleased by the rumors that alignment no longer has any mechanical significance in the game.  I find the idea that there is LG but no CG kind of strange.  Same with having CE but no LE.  But I can live with that as a small price to pay to be rid of mechanically significant alignment.  Once alignment is out of the mechanics, you can easily remove it altogether or have the full old-style nine alignments, etc.


----------



## Jack99 (May 17, 2008)

Kvantum said:
			
		

> And how much better is unaligned? "Whee! I don't even have to follow Chaos if I don't feel like it!"




First of all, notice that I said that I hate alignments, full stop.

Second of all, unaligned probably isn't much better (it is however hard to be worse than CN - worst alignment ever), but much will depend on the description in the PHB.


----------



## Terwox (May 17, 2008)

Simm said:
			
		

> Forget CG where's my LE. I demand my LE without it how can I have my ruthless yet honourable tyrants. You never realize how much you love somthing until it's gone




Here's how you have a ruthless yet honorable tyrant:

He's evil.  Or unaligned.  He acts exactly the same as he did before, but his alignment modifier is less precise.  It's going to be ok.


----------



## Tervin (May 17, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Alignment sucks. They should have died and gone to hell. At least some are gone now. Christ I hate CN especially. Talk about a license to act like an lunatic.




Agreed, alignment sucks. As all my D&D groups over the years have wanted to stay close to the RAW we always kept it, and many of us put a lot of work into creating playable, sane and generally popular CN characters. But I agree, somehow some people always had to go the loony way, which got old real fast.


----------



## Tuft (May 17, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Strange.  I always figured it was LG that represented mental problems.
> 
> That difference in perception, more than anything else, is why I'm nervous about the new alignments.  Anyone who thinks adding order to good somehow makes it more good is not speaking the same language as me.  Conversely, I find it self-evident that adding order to evil makes it more evil.  Adding chaos to evil just makes it squirmy.




Well, it might be so that "lawful" has been redefined, so that it _doesn't_ have anything to do with Order and Organization any more, and only means "more good"...

And I agree with your definition of the old alignments. An organized Stalin-style empire is much more scary than an run-amock anarchy of feuding warlords (using the common, non-4E definition of the term...  )


----------



## Mercule (May 17, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> To me chaotic always meant more of individualistic and less of wacky. Or on a more analytic level, that they made decisions depending on each individual situation rather than on a pattern they had chosen.



Yup.  Chaotics tended to deal in individual terms.  Lawfuls in groups.  A CG character would be more concerned with the well-being of each person within a town, while the LG character would think of the town as a whole.  A LG person would be better able to justify the loss of one or two people, so long as the village survived and prospered.  A CG person would be prone to agonize over such things to the point of risking the rest of the town.


			
				Tuft said:
			
		

> Well, it might be so that "lawful" has been redefined, so that it _doesn't_ have anything to do with Order and Organization any more, and only means "more good"...



Which begs the question, why carry the old term forward if you're going to change its meaning significantly -- especially when the meaning was already a source of more than a few flamewars.


----------



## Wolfspider (May 17, 2008)

If alignment doesn't have any mechanical impact, I wonder how holy and unholy weapons and effects are going to work....


----------



## Sojorn (May 17, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> If alignment doesn't have any mechanical impact, I wonder how holy and unholy weapons and effects are going to work....



Well Holy Avengers...

Do radiant damage? Holy and unholy seem to have been split off from the concepts of good and evil.


----------



## Mercule (May 17, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> If alignment doesn't have any mechanical impact, I wonder how holy and unholy weapons and effects are going to work....



Bonus "radiant" damage?


----------



## Wolfspider (May 17, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Well Holy Avengers...
> 
> Do radiant damage? Holy and unholy seem to have been split off from the concepts of good and evil.




Hmmm.


----------



## Tuft (May 17, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Which begs the question, why carry the old term forward if you're going to change its meaning significantly -- especially when the meaning was already a source of more than a few flamewars.




Well, they have this habit of using old names for new concepts - look at the Archon, for example.


----------



## jeffhartsell (May 17, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> Why would you need a label for it?




We pretty much ignore alignment anyway. You're either with us or against us    Unless we think you are and you're not, until we find out otherwise, then you definitely are NOT!


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 17, 2008)

Before, there wasn't much point in defining Chaotic Good vs. Neutral Good, because unless you make them really prescriptive they end up referring to the same thing: doing what you think is right rather than what society thinks is right.
As well, Lawful Evil never really made sense, because evil in and of itself can't have rules; a society could not be built upon hurting one another, because no one would agree to being hurt.  And if you have misguided ideals of evil, and think that they are laws, that is actually a chaotic way of thinking (being irrational).


----------



## Bishmon (May 17, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> As well, Lawful Evil never really made sense, because evil in and of itself can't have rules; a society could not be built upon hurting one another, because no one would agree to being hurt.



That's odd. I can safely say I've never thought of a lawful evil society as one predicated upon everyone hurting each other.

When I think lawful evil, I think a society at ease with oppressing certain people (based on social class, race, etc.), slavery, preemptive and total war, etc.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 17, 2008)

The new alignment system is actually pretty simple:

Lawful Good: You have given both subjects a lot of thought and have actively chosen to uphold the very precepts of goodness and feel strongly inclined towards justice and upholding the law.

Good: You have given it much thought and you uphold your concept of goodness regardless of if it puts you against the laws of the land

Unaligned: You've either never given lofty concepts such as Law, Goodness, Evil, or Chaos any significant thought and just live your life as you see fit, or you've thought about it and none of them appeal.

Evil: You have actively chosen to serve evil, or at least think that those who serve good are so feeble and weak-minded that you a certainly not _that_ .

Chaotic Evil: You have actively chosen to serve evil and take great pleasure in destroying all that is good, and would love nothing more than to see all creation torn assunder.

And THAT is why most 4E characters and creatures are unaligned. They simply live their lives.

Fits


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 17, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Lawful Evil never really made sense,




What do you mean?  Many lawyers, politicians, and all rules lawyers    are lawful evil. Knowingly using and/or manipulating the law /rules to serve your own ends rather than recognising what those laws/rules were intended for.

Fitz

Hmmm... interesting how the Law vs Chaos argument can be similar to the RAW/RAI argument...


----------



## Incenjucar (May 17, 2008)

I'm guessing CE/LG is more in relation to Abyss/Gods who want to preserve reality for the good of all thing.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 17, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> I really don't see why you need a specific alignment to exist to play the character you want to play. (Personally I've rarely used alignments, so what do I know?)
> 
> Fitz




So how did you deal with spells like Detect Good/Evil, Protection from Good/Evil, Dispel Good/Evil? Did you just remove them from the game?  Seems like more work than it's worth.  Did you give the Paladin something in exchange for removing Detect Evil?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 17, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> What do you mean?  Many lawyers, politicians, and all rules lawyers    are lawful evil. Knowingly using and/or manipulating the law /rules to serve your own ends rather than recognising what those laws/rules were intended for.
> 
> Fitz
> 
> Hmmm... interesting how the Law vs Chaos argument can be similar to the RAW/RAI argument...




Seems more Chaotic to me...  You have a rule.  You know what it's used for.  But you twist that rule (or law) to benefit you.  You migh even re-interpret the rule/law.  Seems more on the Chaos side.  It's turning law into chaos.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 17, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Seems more Chaotic to me...  You have a rule.  You know what it's used for.  But you twist that rule (or law) to benefit you.  You migh even re-interpret the rule/law.  Seems more on the Chaos side.  It's turning law into chaos.




Chaos is disorder.

Nothing is disorderly about having your political enemies executed due to a loophole.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 17, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> When I think lawful evil, I think a society at ease with oppressing certain people (based on social class, race, etc.), slavery, preemptive and total war, etc.



But in the case that one is following the laws, they aren't evil--the laws are bad.  If eating animals turns out to be evil, is everyone who isn't a vegetarian Evil?
Understanding that a law is Bad and following it doesn't make you somehow lawful at heart, but just plain old Evil.  This is because laws can't be meant to support Evil, because laws are generally agreed upon.
If you *can't* understand that a law is Bad, and follow it because you think laws are good for their own sake, then you are inherently irrational, and thus Chaotic at heart--anyone can give you any rule and you'll follow it.

This is what I think WotC's point of view is and I think they're right that the old system wasn't as useful in determining the actual nature of a person.  (Not that I think alignments are a good idea, but if they must exist....)


----------



## Rabbitbait (May 17, 2008)

And it's exactly this debate which is proof of how the whole old alignment system sucked. 30 years down the track and we still can't agree what Lawful-Evil is.

Personally I never liked the straightjacket of alignments.

If a player asks you "I'm neutral-good, can I do that?", or "that guy is lawful-evil, so this is what he'll do..", it's time to throw the alignment system out of the window.

Alignment is not as important as character background, or the growth in personality that comes from adventuring. I've seen many idealistic, trusting 1st level characters become cynical, kill-first-and-ask-questions-later 12th level characters. I've also seen character who start from a bad background, have an epiphany partway through the game and redeem themselves.

This would not be so easy if they had started off with an alignment that they felt they had to adhere to.


----------



## Shroomy (May 17, 2008)

I'm going to take Ari's advice and wait for more information on how 4e handles alignment, but my personal preference would have been to jettison the lawful-chaotic axis all together.


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Christ I hate CN especially. Talk about a license to act like an lunatic.



Whether CN exists as a known alignment or not, my characters are still gonna act like lunatics when the mood suits them/me.  In fact, it's even better now, as I can have otherwise-"lawful" characters act like lunatics on occasion without having to worry about violating alignment tenets.

Lookout, worlds!

Lanefan


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 17, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Before, there wasn't much point in defining Chaotic Good vs. Neutral Good, because unless you make them really prescriptive they end up referring to the same thing: doing what you think is right rather than what society thinks is right.




The main difference I see between these two alignments is that Neutral Good is basically as you describe _doing what you think is right rather than what society thinks is right._ where as Chaotic Good is actively going against the laws/rules.  They are just looking for an excuse to break the rules.  A CG person is almost looking for a reason to go against society where as NG is not.



			
				muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> As well, Lawful Evil never really made sense, because evil in and of itself can't have rules; a society could not be built upon hurting one another, because no one would agree to being hurt.  And if you have misguided ideals of evil, and think that they are laws, that is actually a chaotic way of thinking (being irrational).




Society is not the only defintion of law/chaos.  There are personal codes as well one holds themselves up to.  An Assassin who kills for money (or pleasure) but has a personal code that he will never kill children or women.  Then there is Dexter... A serial killer who works as a Crime Scene Investigator and quenches is thrist for blood by killing just the bad people/criminals, not the innocent people.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 17, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Chaos is disorder.
> 
> Nothing is disorderly about having your political enemies executed due to a loophole.




Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.  If you are bending the laws to suit your needs, rather than how they were set up as originally intended, that is chaotic IMO.


----------



## Derren (May 17, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> As well, Lawful Evil never really made sense, because evil in and of itself can't have rules; a society could not be built upon hurting one another, because no one would agree to being hurt.  And if you have misguided ideals of evil, and think that they are laws, that is actually a chaotic way of thinking (being irrational).




May I invoke Godwins Law and point you towards Nazi Germany? 
You have a genocide (evil) in a very organized manner (lawful).

And for something not Nazi related, what about the law in china which forces woman to be sterilized?


----------



## Bishmon (May 17, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Understanding that a law is Bad and following it doesn't make you somehow lawful at heart, but just plain old Evil.  This is because laws can't be meant to support Evil, because laws are generally agreed upon.



And people can't agree upon doing evil things? Do you know about the whole slavery thing in American history?



			
				muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> If you *can't* understand that a law is Bad, and follow it because you think laws are good for their own sake, then you are inherently irrational, and thus Chaotic at heart--anyone can give you any rule and you'll follow it.



I think that's a wild misinterpretation, and I'm thinking if we're that far apart, us discussing this is going to do absolutely no good.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 17, 2008)

The one thing I liked about RIFTS is the alignment system.  Not only does it make a little more sense, they give you specific actions a character of each alignment would or would not due, just as a guideline.  There are 7 total alignments, 2 for Good, 2 for Selfish and 3 for Evil.  Here is how the RIFTS alignments work...

There is no such thing as an absolute neutral alignment. A character with an absolute, true neutral position could not make a decision, fight tyranny, hurt others, go adventuring, or take any action of any kind without leaning toward good, evil or self-gratification. It is humanly impossible, and therefore is eliminated in the context of this game.

The "good" alignments are Principled and Scrupulous. The "selfish" alignments are Unprincipled and Anarchist. The "evil" alignments are Aberrant, Miscreant, and Diabolic.

*Good Alignments*
Good aligned characters (Principled and Scrupulous) are the straight-up heroes of the world. They generally place a high value on life and liberty, as well as law and order. Just because a character is of a good alignment, however, does not mean he's a saint or without bad habits. Good characters can be irritating, obnoxious and arrogant, even prejudiced and full of annoying quirks. Likewise, they may find themselves stepping outside the boundaries of the law in their quest to combat evil and injustice, but when push comes to shove, the characters can always be trusted to do the right thing, especially in a life and death situation.

*Principled (Good)*
Principled characters are upright "boyu scouts" or "do gooder" types who put others before themselves. This is the knight in shinning armor, with the highest regard for the lives and well-being of others, freedom, truth, honor, and justice. Principled characters will always attempt to with within the law, and have a high regard for (and trust of) authority, as well as for life and freedom. They are usually compassionate, merciful, cooperative and sincere.

A Principled character will...

 Avoid lies 
 Never kill or attack an unarmed foe 
 Never harm an innocent 
 Never torture for any reason 
 Never kill for pleasure 
 Always help others 
 Always work within the law whenever possible. 
 Never break the law unless conditions are desperate. This means no breaking and entering, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults, etc. 
 Respect authority, law, self-discipline, and honor. 
 Work well with a group. 
 Never take "dirty" money, or ill-gotten valuables or goods. This means any property that belongs to criminals or villains. It matters not how the bad guys got that property themselves: the hero will not touch it even if destitute. 
 Never betray a friend.

*Scrupulous (Good)*
Scrupulous characters value life and freedom above all else and despise those who would deprive others of them. This type of hero is typically portrayed in many movies as the cop who plays by his own rules, forced to work beyond the law for justice (or retribution) and the greater good of the people. They are not vicious or vindictive characters, but are individuals driven by their sense of justice to right a wrong or take a (bloody) stand. This characters will always attempt to work within the law whenever possible.

A Scrupulous character will...

 Keep his word to any other good person 
 Lie only to people of selfish or evil alignments 
 Never attack or kill an unarmed foe 
 Never harm an innocent 
 Never torture for pleasure, but may use muscle to extract information from criminals or evil characters 
 Never kill for pleasure, will always attempt to bring the villain to justice alive, no matter how vile he may find him. 
 Always try to help others 
 Attempt to work within the law whenever possible. 
 Bend and, occassionally, break the law when deemed necessary. This means he may use strong-arm techniques, harass, break and enter, steal and so forth (but only against bad guys). 
 Work with groups, but dislike confining laws and bureaucracy (red tape). 
 Never take "dirty" money or items. 
 Never betray a friend.

*Selfish Alignments*
Selfish characters (Unprincipled and Anarchist) are not necessarily evil, but they always have their own best interests at heart and their opinions in mind above all others. These are the mercenaries, rogues, vigilantes and anti-heroes of the world.

*Unprincipled (Selfish)*
This basically good person tends to be selfish, greedy, and holds his personal freedom and welfare above almost everything else. He dislikes confining laws and self-discipline and distrusts authority. He views the government as well-intentioned, but clumsy and ineffective. Keeping his best interests in mind, the character will always look out for himself.
This character is also likely to take "dirty" money and items, with the concept that it will help him in his crusade against evil. He may also destroy the property of known criminals. He will not deal in illegal wares, drugs, or take money from innocent or good people. The Unprincipled character may associate with both good and evil characters, and often has paid informants, spies and stoolies.
This is the noble scoundrel, the guy who is always looking for the best deal, associates with good and evil characters, is continually tempted to lie and cheat, and hates himself for being loyal, helping others and ultimately doing the "right thing".

An Unprincipled character will...

 Keep his word of honor 
 Lie and cheat if necessary (especially to those of Anarchisy and evil alignments). 
 Not kill an unarmed foe (but will take advantage of one). 
 Never harm an innocent 
 Never use torture unless absolutely necessary. 
 Never kill for pleasure; will attempt to bring the villain to justice alive and ruin him rather than simply kill him. 
 Usually help those in need. 
 Rarely attempt to work within the law. 
 Blatantly break the law to achieve his (usually good-intentioned) goals. 
 Dislike and distrust authority, the law and bureaucracy. Feels they have been corrupted and abused. 
 Work with groups, especially if it serves his needs, is profitable, and/or he is in the limelight. 
 Take "dirty" money. 
 Never betray a friend. 
 Have a high regard for life and freedom.

*Anarchist (Selfish)*
This type of character likes to indulge himself in everything. He is the insurgent, con-artist, gambler and uncommited freebooter who adventures because he enjoys the thrill, fame and forture it brings, rather than for any cause (like defending humanity). This character will at least consider doing anything if the price is right or the challenge is alluring enough.
Laws and rules infringe on personal freedom and were meant to be broken. He will not hesitate at using strong-arm techniques, breaking and entering, theft, harassment, destruction of private property, and so on. This can also include acting as judge, jury and executioner. These characters are usually the daring anti-heroes who feel the end justifies the means. The Anarchist-aligned person is always looking for the best deal and self-gratification. He will work with good, selfish and evil characters to attain his goals. This Anarchist is continually teetering between good and evil, rebelling against and bending the law to fit his needs. Mercenaries and theives fall into this category.

An Anarchist character will...

 Keep his word, but only if it suits or pleases him. 
 Lie and cheat if he feels necessary. 
 Not be likely to kill an unarmed foe, but certainly will knock out, attack or beat up one. 
 Never kill an innocent, although his rash or self-serving actions may injure or kill bystanders by accident. 
 Use torture to extract information, but is likely to not do so for pleasure. 
 Seldom kill for pleasure. 
 Not be likely to help someone without some ulterior motive (even if it's only to show off). 
 Rarely work within the law unless it serves his purpose. 
 Constantly break the law to achieve his goals. 
 Have little respect for authority, the law, or self-discipline. 
 Not work well within groups: tends to do as he pleases, despite orders to the contrary. 
 Take "dirty" money without hesitation. 
 Possibly betray a friend. Sorry, pal.

*Evil Alignment*
All evil characters (Aberrant, Miscreant, and Diabolic) are not necessarily bent on universal genocide or dominating all other living creatures. Nor are all evil characters sadistic, cruel, ugly, or untrustworthy. Many evil characters may actually seem kind or likeable.
Evil alignments are a step beyond the self-gratificaiton of the selfish alignments. Evil characters are ruthless individuals who are willing to say or do anything to achieve their goals. Most commonly, evil characters have goals that either entail making people suffer or cause suffering as a side effect (a side effect that the evil character knowingly and callously disregards). Human life has little meaning to them, and friends tend to be (but not always) people to use and discard when they are no longer of value. Evil-aligned characters do not automatically slay any good-aligned person because of different ethics or philosophy. All the better to use good to achieve their own goals, for the end always justifies the means.

*Aberrant (Evil)*
The cliche that there is "no honor among thieves" is false when dealing with an Aberrant character. This is an individual who is driven to attain his goals through force, power and intimidation. Yet the Aberrant character stands apart from the norm with his own personal (and twisted) code of ethics. He expects loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a swift, merciful death or banishment. An Aberrant character will always keep his word of honor and uphold any bargins. He will define his terms and live by them, whether anyone else likes them or not.
If an anti-hero, he will completely disregard law and deal out justice as he deems fit. He will never be cruel or vindictive, and will always be absolutely positive that the person is guily before he deals out his brand of justice. However, once he condemns a character, he will see to it that it is destroyed.
Whether a villain or a corrupt or extreme anti-hero, the Aberrant character looks upon people without honor or a sense of loyalty as worthless and disgusting lowlifes.
Do not think the Aberrant character as a misguided goodguy. He or she will break all laws with impunity, harass victims, destroy propery, assault, blackmail, torture and murder. Only their methods and degree of violence may vary.

An Aberrant character will...

 Always Keep his word of honor (at least to those he deems worthy of it). 
 Lie and cheat to those not worthy of his respect; selfish, evil or good. 
 May or maynot kill an unarmed foe. 
 Never kill an innocent, particulary a child, but may harm, harass or kidnap. 
 Never torture for pleasure, but will use it to extract information and intimidate others. 
 Never kill for pleasure, but will always have a reason. 
 May or may not help someone in need. 
 Rarely attempt to work within the law. 
 Break the law without hesitation. 
 Have no use for law or bureaucracy, but respects honor, self-discipline and the "concept" of laws and order. 
 Work with others to attain his goal. 
 Usually take "dirty" money, although his twisted code of ethics may prevent him from doing so in some instances. 
 Never betray a friend. Never.

*Miscreant (Evil)*
This self-serving, unscrupulous character is out only for himself. Power, glory, wealth, position and anything that will make his life more comfortable or pleasureable is his goal. It doesn't matter who gets caught in the middle, as long as he comes out smiling like a rose. The character will lie, cheat, hurt, and kill anyone to attain his personal goals.
If a Miscreant character becomes a vigilante, mercenary or bounty hunter, it will be for some personal reason, a vendetta, money, glory, or a love for danger and challenge. This character is a savage misanthrope out for himself.

A Miscreant character will...

 Not necessarily keep his word to anyone. 
 Lie and cheat indiscriminately (good, evil, selfish). 
 Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competition. 
 Use or harm an innocent. 
 Use torture for extracting information and pleasure. 
 May kill for sheer pleasure. 
 Feel no compulsion to help without some sort of tangible reward for him. 
 Have no deference to the law, but will work within the law if he must. 
 Blatantly break the law for his own goals and pleasure. 
 Dislike and distrust authory and the law. 
 Work with others if it will help him to to attain his personal goals. 
 Take "dirty" money, stolen goods, and illegal items (as well as steal valuables for himself whenever the opportunity arises). 
 Betray a friend if it serves his needs. 
 Have no respect or concern for the lives or welfare of others.

*Diabolic (Evil)*
This is the category that most megalomanics, psychopaths, and violent and despicable characters fall into. This is the cruel, brutal killer who trusts no one and has no value for any life other than his own. A Diabolic character will crush anyone who gets in his way. The lowlife will lie, cheat, con, abuse, and kill anyone less powerful than he is. Aberrant characters find these dishonorable people more revolting than a good-aligned character.

A Diabolic character will... 

 Rarely keep his word, and has no honor. 
 Lie and cheat to anyone. 
 Most certainly attack and ill an unarmed foe. 
 Hurt and kill an innocent without a second thought and for pleasure. 
 Use torture for pleasure and information, regularly. 
 Kill for sheer pleasure. 
 Be likely to help someone only on a whim (or to set them up for some evil deed later). 
 Rarely attempt to work within the law. 
 Blatantly break the law and mock authority. 
 Despise honor, authority, and self-discipline. Views them as weaknesses. 
 Not work well within a group; constantly disregarding orders and vying for power/command. 
 Always take "dirty" money, drugs, stolen goods, etc. as well as steal from others. 
 Betray a friend without hesitation: after all, you can always find new friends. 
 Associate mostly with other evil alignments.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 17, 2008)

Just one more voice who thinks that LE and CG have a place in the world.  I'm glad that 4E has de-emphasized Alignments and replaced "True Neutral" with Unaligned, but they've gone further than trimmed the fat here. They cut out some good meat.

Ah well, hardly difficult to put back in, eh?


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 17, 2008)

If in 4E, a character behaves the way you'd describe a CG character in 3.5 but has something else written on his character sheet, is that bad? I don't really get why some people think because alignments have been simplified(primarily because they weren't important), it means that you can't play that kind of character any more. I think everyone knows that there are far too many 'alignments', certainly more than 9, to record in any thorough fashion. So why not simplify it and let the character's actions and personality define who they are? And how does having CG written down change any of that?


----------



## Celebrim (May 18, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> ...as far as Chaotic Good goes, it's basically unaligned with good leanings, or basically good with some mental problems.




The biggest problem with the alignment system is that very few people seem to understand it.

Chaotic Good is most certainly neither unaligned with good leanings, nor basically good with some mental problems.

Chaotic Good is essentially Liberalism in the classical rich capital 'L' John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson (I'd go further in the list, but it would become political with more modern figures) sense of the word before the term lost any real meaning because too many philosophies coopted it.  Chaotic Good is the belief that true goodness is only expressable through the excercise of invidual liberty, and that the most weal and benefit is obtained when basically good people are left unfettered by social constraints or burdensome laws.  There is nothing basically mentally unbalanced about it at all.  There is nothing basically ungood about it at all, and a very strong case could be made (and CG people would make it) that CG _is Good_, and that other alignments are less good.  

Of course, people who believe in LE philosophies largely believe that what they believe _is Good_ and right and just as well.

The alignment descriptors aren't meant to solve that debate.  They are simply meant as a simplified way to describe the various philosophical camps and futher - in a very fantasy and fantastical way - to make those philosophical camps and ideals tangible things.

The alignment system isn't one of D&D's flaws.  It's one of the reasons I play D&D.  Because without it, the game would tend to just be killing things and taking there stuff.  I play D&D because I like situations like the PC's going into the orc lair to kill things and take thier stuff...

...and rescueing a very pregnant human slave
...who soon needs a midwife
...who delivers a wailing half-orc child
...which prompts the mother to ask the PC's to kill it

None of which requires the alignment system, but having the alignment system helps keep these questions tangible in a way that having no mechanics for alignment actions - no way to keep score - isn't.


----------



## Celebrim (May 18, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> The one thing I liked about RIFTS is the alignment system.  Not only does it make a little more sense, they give you specific actions a character of each alignment would or would not due, just as a guideline.  There are 7 total alignments, 2 for Good, 2 for Selfish and 3 for Evil.  Here is how the RIFTS alignments work...




To be perfectly frank, if I had to vote for the worst rules system ever published, it would be RIFTS.

The problem with thier alignment system is that its a less interesting and less flexible subsystem of the D&D nine.  It is well described perhaps in a way that D&D's never has been, but its maybe over defined for my taste and lacks the interesting symmetry and relationships of D&D's nine.

Principled is basically LG.
Scrupulous is CG.
Unprincipled is basically CN with slight good tendancies.
Anarchist is basically CN with evil tendancies.
Aberrant is basically LE.  And its really misnamed at that.
Miscreant is basically CE.
Diabolical is basically a more extreme CE.

Notice who unbalanced its characterizations fall under the D&D scheme.  Most of them are chaotic.  Balance between individualism and collectivism or its relationship to good and evil are seldom considered except for mentioning that 'Aberrant' people despise 'Diabolical' ones and the contrast between 'Principled' and 'Scurpulous' (which seems to imply the same 'Principled' (LG) is more good than 'Scrupulous' (CG) bias long standing in D&D as well).  And notice the huge holes and how badly various people practicing the various philosophies would feel misrepresented.  Is there nothing between 'Principled' and 'Aberrant'?  Where are the more subtle cases?  Is there no selfless alignment which isn't good?   Where is 'unaligned'?  Shouldn't there be room for an unpricipled character that does try to work within the law?  Is obeying the law the end all be all of good that the description seems to imply?  

And so forth.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 18, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> It's a pity the whole alignment system wasn't ditched, really.
> 
> At least it no longer has a mechanical component, so I don't have to worry about it messing with my games and causing silly player arguments.





Is that confirmed information?  

I've never liked alignment and think its a clunky way to pigeonhole characters.  If it has no mechanical bearing, I can ditch it without a second though.


----------



## Ten (May 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with the alignment system is that very few people seem to understand it.




The biggest problem with the alignment system is that people have different values and can interpret the alignments in a variety of different ways without being wrong.  The alignment system flat out creates arguments, especially from principled people who feel they have a good handle on the system and insist their interpretations are right when there are other people people who are the same way.  No one is willing to cede a point when it comes down to their moral compass.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 18, 2008)

As much as I LIKED the alignment system, I'd rather have it completely destroyed before this new five tier system comes into place.  And as much as I ADORE the chaos vs law, I'd much rather have that hacked out before this five tier system comes into place.

This is, bar none, the worst decision they could have made regarding alignment.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 18, 2008)

People Equating "Chaos" with "Freedom" was probably the reason CG was axed.

Freedom is up held by order.  Chaos is your 9th grade gym class for the rest of your life.

*stop hitting yourself* *stop hitting yourself*


----------



## Sojorn (May 18, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> This is, bar none, the worst decision they could have made regarding alignment.



Nay, using my psychic powers to determine exactly what Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil actually mean now, I have devised an alignment system far worse:

Ethical/Neutral/Unethical
Moral/Neutral/Immoral

Pick one from each axis.

Ok, so I cribbed some notes from some place. If you don't get it, just walk away, please don't ask, you're really, really better off not knowing. Arg. I really wish I didn't know. Oh, god, the magic fumble tables... the horror...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 18, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Nay, using my psychic powers to determine exactly what Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil actually mean now, I have devised an alignment system far worse:
> 
> Ethical/Neutral/Unethical
> Moral/Neutral/Immoral
> ...




...Why did you remind me that this exists?

You are now rolling to see how fast you can talk.



			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> People Equating "Chaos" with "Freedom" was probably the reason CG was axed.
> 
> Freedom is up held by order.  Chaos is your 9th grade gym class for the rest of your life.
> 
> *stop hitting yourself* *stop hitting yourself*




CG shouldn't be axed because people are dumb, though.

I forget if it was here or in the other thread, but someone else put it much better - CG is John Locke, or classic liberallism.  FEWER laws, more personal freedoms.  And the absence of Lawful Evil is just pants on head retarded.  Or maybe pants on head drunk, as I...well, we won't go there.


----------



## Sojorn (May 18, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> ...Why did you remind me that this exists?



Pain exists to be shared. Have a cookie and know that you do not suffer alone


----------



## Ipissimus (May 18, 2008)

Ten said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with the alignment system is that people have different values and can interpret the alignments in a variety of different ways without being wrong.  The alignment system flat out creates arguments.




Then it should have been ripped out completely or included as an optional rule in the DMG.

Nine Alignments gave DnD depth beyond killing things and taking their stuff. LG-G-U-E-CE is just dull, it infuses DnD with all the worst aspects of a children's cartoon serial.

It's always infuriated me that there's been a slow creep of 'philosophy bias' built into the rules. LG is the 'best good' and CE is the 'worst evil'. Formalizing that by gutting the rest of the system disgusts me. It's the greatest waste of potential I've ever seen.


----------



## Family (May 18, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> CG is John Locke, or classic liberallism.  FEWER laws, more personal freedoms.


----------



## FourthBear (May 18, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Nine Alignments gave DnD depth beyond killing things and taking their stuff. LG-G-U-E-CE is just dull, it infuses DnD with all the worst aspects of a children's cartoon serial.



The alignment system never had anything to do with giving D&D depth beyond killing things.  Most role playing games do just fine without an alignment system and many of them are far less associated with killing things and taking their stuff than D&D.  It's the desire of players, DMs and writers to tell stories and engage in genre emulation that is most responsible for bringing depth to most D&D games.  And the alignment system has never been necessary for that.  No one needs any alignment system to play a role, decide if a character is played consistently or know if there are consequences to actions.   Prior to AD&D, there was an even simpler three axis L-N-C system.  I do not recall that the games with that system were any less in depth than those in AD&D.  I do not think there is any relationship between the number of alignment axes and the depth of any version of D&D.  Let me add my voice to those who wish that the alignment system had been entirely removed (preferably by time travel from all previous editions, too).


----------



## The Shadow (May 18, 2008)

I suspect we'll find that Lawful Good is not Good++, and ditto for Chaotic Evil.  I suspect it'll be a twisty line instead of a wheel.  And I don't think that's a bad thing.  (I could do without alignment entirely, but this'll do.)

Evil may be more *scary* if it's more organized, but that's because it's *less* evil, believe it or not.  There is no such thing as "pure evil";  evil is a corrupted good, which is self-defeating.  In anything with mixed good and evil elements, all the effectiveness comes from the good parts.

What I'm hoping is that Lawful is defined not as "organized" or "following a code" but "upholding society's (good, or at least indifferent) rules over one's own".  As someone else said, there really isn't much of a difference between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good in practice.

Whereas there likewise isn't much of a difference between Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil in practice.  Both are simply out for the Main Chance.  It's not like supposedly "Lawful Evil" individuals are that way out of principle!  They've just found an effective way of getting what they want.  If they follow a malignant code or law out of principle, not because it furthers their personal ends, they're probably unaligned.

"Chaotic Evil" would presumably be for beings that go out of their way to do harm, even when it doesn't benefit them personally in any tangible way and may even harm them too.  (Humans who are consistently like that are, thankfully, quite rare.)  This doesn't make them "more evil than Evil" necessarily, just Evil and stupid.



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Society is not the only defintion of law/chaos.  There are personal codes as well one holds themselves up to.  An Assassin who kills for money (or pleasure) but has a personal code that he will never kill children or women.  Then there is Dexter... A serial killer who works as a Crime Scene Investigator and quenches is thrist for blood by killing just the bad people/criminals, not the innocent people.




That's not "Lawful Evil".  That's just Evil that doesn't want to admit it.

A few scruples to salve one's conscience do not an ethical axis make.



			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> People Equating "Chaos" with "Freedom" was probably the reason CG was axed.
> 
> Freedom is up held by order. Chaos is your 9th grade gym class for the rest of your life.




Quoted, as they say, for truth.


----------



## JoeCrow (May 18, 2008)

In all likelyhood, I'll probably end up just using the Allegiance system from d20 Modern. Just like I started doing with 3e, as soon as Modern came out. It just works better for me and my crew.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 18, 2008)

Not going to read this whole thread.  But I just wanted to say that alignment should've been ditched outright.  That's really the best (the only?) way to get an open spectrum of alignments.


----------



## Lizard (May 18, 2008)

Whence came the idea CN was Malkavian?

CN is "I'm out for myself. I don't really like hurting people and don't go out of my way to do it, but if someone is caught in the crossfire...whatever. Sucks to be them, I guess. Laws and rules for suckers. Tradition is the man keeping you down. Just don't get between me and what I want, and we'll all get along fine."


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 18, 2008)

Here is my take.

LG and CE are just descriptors of certain types.


----------



## The Shadow (May 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> CN is "I'm out for myself. I don't really like hurting people and don't go out of my way to do it, but if someone is caught in the crossfire...whatever. Sucks to be them, I guess. Laws and rules for suckers. Tradition is the man keeping you down. Just don't get between me and what I want, and we'll all get along fine."




Lizard... I read that little vignette and I think, "That's an almost perfect description of evil."

I don't insist on the sentence about tradition, and of course some evil people do enjoy hurting others.  But evil isn't pure self-centeredness plus sadism;  in its essence it simply *is* pure self-centeredness, without any regard for others.

It's not liking hurting others that makes someone evil.  It's being willing to hurt others to satisfy their desires that does that.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Whence came the idea CN was Malkavian?




A) Malkavians have a bad rap.  Silver Fangs also have derangements.

B) I dunno it's kinda been that way since 1e.


----------



## Lizard (May 18, 2008)

The Shadow said:
			
		

> It's not liking hurting others that makes someone evil.  It's being willing to hurt others to satisfy their desires that does that.




How about not caring if others get hurt as a side effect, if you're not hurting them yourself?

To my mind, "Evil" is the deliberate infliction of harm, "Good" is deliberate acts of aid, and "Neutral" is not giving a damn either way. The guy who justifies his actions on the grounds that "I'm not hurting anyone", with the implication, however weak, that if he was he'd stop, is the classic neutral. ("Sure, I'm shoplifting from work, but so what? They've got insurance, and besides, they're not paying me enough, so it's only fair. Would I mug someone on the street? Heck no, what do you take me for?")


----------



## The Shadow (May 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How about not caring if others get hurt as a side effect, if you're not hurting them yourself?
> 
> To my mind, "Evil" is the deliberate infliction of harm, "Good" is deliberate acts of aid, and "Neutral" is not giving a damn either way. The guy who justifies his actions on the grounds that "I'm not hurting anyone", with the implication, however weak, that if he was he'd stop, is the classic neutral. ("Sure, I'm shoplifting from work, but so what? They've got insurance, and besides, they're not paying me enough, so it's only fair. Would I mug someone on the street? Heck no, what do you take me for?")




Well, stealing office supplies isn't *very* evil, but I'd still call that an evil act.  He himself may well be "unaligned" as a whole, of course - probably is.  (But then, I would also ask - does he not mug people because it's wrong, or because he doesn't think the benefit outweighs the risk of getting caught?)

Doing what you want without regard for whether anyone gets hurt is evil in my book.  Of course, hurting them yourself is a *further* evil.  D&D's idea of "Neutrality" between good and evil can really only mean one of three things:

1)  The absence of striking goodness or evil.  Certainly there are huge numbers of people like this.  It's what 4e calls "unaligned".

2)  A whitewash job in which one can be evil without the name, so long as you don't do anything too egregious.  This is often what it comes down to in practice, IMO.  I've got no use for it.

3)  An absurd, laughable idea of "balance" between goodness and evil.  I don't see how any sane person can take it seriously.  Desiring balance between Moorcockian Law and Chaos is quite sensible;  desiring balance between moral good and moral evil is complete nonsense so far as I can see.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 18, 2008)

The Shadow said:
			
		

> Evil may be more *scary* if it's more organized, but that's because it's *less* evil, believe it or not.  There is no such thing as "pure evil";  evil is a corrupted good, which is self-defeating.  In anything with mixed good and evil elements, all the effectiveness comes from the good parts.




As someone else stated, not to Godwin the thread, but I'd say Nazi Germany is pretty damn lawful, pretty damn evil, and incredibly scary.

That's the big problem with saying "OK, there's NO MORE LAWFUL EVIL EVER NEIN NO MORE AT ALL."  Because all it takes is *one* example and suddenly you have to make excuses.  And making excuses means you messed up.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (May 18, 2008)

My three favorite alignments have gone away: LN, LE, and CG.

/sigh.

Hopefully the way alignments read will make up for this loss.


----------



## Krensky (May 18, 2008)

Gah...

This thread is pretty much a text book case of why moral philosophy generally tries to avoid the words good and evil like the plague.

If whoever wrote the original alignment system simply called it moral/amoral/immoral it would have prevented all sorts of arguments and whining over what good and evil really mean. Of course it would have led to generations of gamers whining and butchering moral philosophy directly rather then indirectly so it'd probably be a wash.

The other axis doesn't have handy phrases, since what in practice and fluff it's talking about isn't ethics but philosophy of law. So to better name it you'd want something like positivist/interpertivist/naturalist. Sadly though, as accurate as that is I think they're bad choices, I just can't think of what would be better. Legalist/pragmatist/autonomist sounds better, kinda.

Ethics is tricker because they're inherently tied to setting, but the honor system in Oriental Adventures/Unearthed Arcana is a workable mechanical system for it if a DM feels a need for it. 

However this is all properly in the roleplaying and world building part of the game. Although for some games it would be appropriate to allow those choices (which mechanically should be as meaningful as hair color or handedness or complexion) to have an indirect mechanical through a reputation system. However, the classification system is really more meaningful for groups of actors rather then for an individual moral actor. Not to mention that D&D is really not the game to drag moral, ethical, and legal philosophy into. I'm sure there's some Indy Forge game out there aimed at philosophy majors that no one's ever heard of that handles it better. Or maybe not, since most of the ones I knew in college would rather beat each other over the head with the verbal equivalent of half bricks until only one remained.

Getting back to the issue of the new alignment system... Fundamentally ever since they were introduced alignment acted as a targeting marker. That's all it ever really did mechanically. Well, and it gave the DM a way to penalize a player whose character deviated from or grew away from the alignment they picked first thing and gave people an excuse to be jerks. So the real question isn't where did the four alignments go, but why did LG and CE stay?

On the face of it, targeting good or evil seems more central to the game since twice as many things will be effected by Protection from [Moral Alignment] as will be by Protection from ['Ethical' Alignment]. Especially since the 'ethical' targeting now means the same thing as the moral one. Based on what we've seen, only the good and evil tags are significant, so why not just call alignment good. unaligned, and evil? And (since I haven't been paying that much attention) if we know that good and evil no longer function as targeting variables for the magic system, why keep alignment at all?


----------



## Krensky (May 18, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> As someone else stated, not to Godwin the thread, but I'd say Nazi Germany is pretty damn lawful, pretty damn evil, and incredibly scary.
> 
> That's the big problem with saying "OK, there's NO MORE LAWFUL EVIL EVER NEIN NO MORE AT ALL."  Because all it takes is *one* example and suddenly you have to make excuses.  And making excuses means you messed up.




Don't worry, Godwin's only invoked when an argument devolves to someone calling the other position nazis, fascist, etc.

Oh, it also doesn't work if you try and trigger it just to end the discussion.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 18, 2008)

I'm here to Godwin this hyar thread.... Everyone's Nazis and they just don't realize it yet.


Now that you've been Godwinned let's at least be reasonable.  4e alignment is different, given that everything in 4e is different this isn't unexpected.  Some of us like it, some don't.  Toss the coin again.  But I see a lot of hate on for a system that I always liked.  Alignment, especially that it had tangible mechanical features, was one of the things that separated D&D from any number of other RPGs.  

Old alignment was more than just a scope for relativistic wailing about various ethical codes.  Alignment was a way of showing that relativism didn't exist in D&D.  Good wasn't just something that you claimed you were, it was a real objective force of the cosmos and a characters position on it was also choosing sides in an eternal metaphysical battle.  You couldn't just say, "but yes I'm Good."   Barring magical intervention a cleric or paladin could actually examine you and tell whether your soul resonated with the energy's of the alignment you claimed to be on the side of.  

Honestly from the explanations of alignment I'm seeing here most people are so versed in relativism that they don't get just how truly Olde School the old 9 point alignment is.  It's a totally non-relativist system.  Thoughts, feelings, or justifications are meaningless to it, as are the mores of societies.  It's all about the act itself, very Kantian in a way, and approaching it from a utilitarian viewpoint as many are is guaranteed to scramble it up because it denies utilitarianism.  

Certain things are in and of themselves aligned with a particular metaphysical force (Good, Evil, Law, Chaos & Neutrality).  Individual perception is meaningless to ultimate nature.  And to further complicate things it draws the lines of what acts fall under what force in a way that doesn't match modern 1st world ethical structures.  Notice all the the people pointing to neutrality and saying not caring whether others are hurt is evil?  That presumes the act of harming something is evil in and of itself, a view that even now you only find in sheltered places.  

Basically to understand alignment you have to toss moral relativism over one shoulder and take a metaphysical journey to a more Hammurabian view.


----------



## Jack99 (May 18, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Here is my take.
> 
> LG and CE are just descriptors of certain types.




Now that I have slept on it, this is the most likely solution. Basically we have 3 alignments now. Evil-Unaligned-Good. On top of that, Good and Evil each have a sub-alignment, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil respectively. So in short, that means that LN-N-CN has been lumped together into Unaligned, LE-NE is now Evil, and NG-CG is now Good. Seems fair enough. I always found those the hardest to distinguish.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 18, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> People Equating "Chaos" with "Freedom" was probably the reason CG was axed.
> 
> Freedom is up held by order.  Chaos is your 9th grade gym class for the rest of your life.
> 
> *stop hitting yourself* *stop hitting yourself*




My 9th grade gym class was sweet, I could sit down in the corner and read a book if I wanted to so long as I got dressed, and nobody would give me flack for it.

But anyway, the Bully is a form of Law and Order. A law that benefits only a few people and an order that is enforced by brute force. True freedom implies nobody is there to force you to do anything, even if it is for your own good.


----------



## Larrin (May 18, 2008)

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> True freedom implies nobody is there to force you to do anything, even if it is for your own good.




...I'm pretty sure this has never happened in the real world, and the closest places to this are in pretty rough shape.  This definition of freedom leads to a large breakdown of social infrastructure.  If no one can "force" you not to steal, cheat, etc, then you can, and people will, and so since you can't force your neighbor not to steal from you, you either have to steal it back, fend him off, or let him prey upon you.  None of these choices lead to a good situation.

Sure its nice to think that nobody forcing you to do things means no substance restictions, marriage limitations, get a job/haircut, or whatever you personal 'freedom' cause is, but the absolute removal of it opens a very ugly box.  

True freedom, in my book, is when a person is free of their own selfish desires and willingly do what is best for others and the community. This is even more of a dream, but its a good goal none the less.


----------



## Byronic (May 18, 2008)

The X.Neutral alignments in 3.x can also be good for completely amoral races (races that don't judge things by good or evil, possible the Ealdrin race). 

Having said that I shall simply keep the old alignment system because the new one just isn't descriptive enough. Even when comparing amoral races together some might be Lawful or Chaotic. And then continue to ignore the whole thing anyway since it doesn't matter in the new system.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 18, 2008)

Larrin said:
			
		

> ...I'm pretty sure this has never happened in the real world, and the closest places to this are in pretty rough shape.  This definition of freedom leads to a large breakdown of social infrastructure.  If no one can "force" you not to steal, cheat, etc, then you can, and people will, and so since you can't force your neighbor not to steal from you, you either have to steal it back, fend him off, or let him prey upon you.  None of these choices lead to a good situation.
> 
> Sure its nice to think that nobody forcing you to do things means no substance restictions, marriage limitations, get a job/haircut, or whatever you personal 'freedom' cause is, but the absolute removal of it opens a very ugly box.




I am fully aware that humans cannot experience true freedom (at least not as I call it) because humans cannot function without some sort of boundaries.

See this point however: 



> But anyway, the Bully is a form of Law and Order. A law that benefits only a few people and an order that is enforced by brute force.




That would apply in such a "dog eat dog" situation as you described. In fact any sort of order where rules (such as ownership) are enforced isn't freedom. However by giving people a sufficiently large sized "sandbox", you can give them the illusion of freedom.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 18, 2008)

Pretty sure WotC is changing alignments to focus more on how the types of actions characters take rather than what they are.

I can see Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good characters, but not Lawfully Evil actions or Chaotically Good actions.

For good action, you can either do something because you think it's right (Good), or because someone (a law perhaps) tells you that it's right (Lawful Good).  You can't chaotically cause good because goodness requires will.
For evil action, you can either do something because you want to help yourself somehow (Evil), or because you think that evil is good in and of itself (Chaotic Evil).  I've never heard of a law specifically designed to promote evil (maybe in Hell...but probably not).  Slavery for instance isn't designed to be evil, even if it is.  Therefore you don't follow the law in the efforts of supporting evil, but because it aligns with an evil mind.

For characters who don't care about Good or Evil, there's Unaligned actions; even purely chaotic actions or purely ordered actions, with no preference in regards to morality, don't really need to be differentiated.  Knowing that a character prefers one type over another says a lot more about his/her mental state than ideals.

In other words, the old and new systems aren't mutually exclusive.  The new one is just the more functional one, because it gets rid of certain assumptions that don't really apply to actual decision-making.
As an aside: I always thought that the idea behind Law and Chaos "warring" against each other was ridiculous.  What motivation would there be?  Ordered minds understand that Law can't exist without Chaos, and the essence of Chaos is mindless irrational action--it shouldn't care.  Even templars of Law and Chaos only work if you give Law and Chaos some moral-based reason to oppose each other, and then you dip into Good vs. Evil.
Lawful Good and Lawful Evil ganging up against Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil.  Uh-huh.


----------



## Flobby (May 18, 2008)

I' not sure how they are defining the alignments but it makes a lot of sense to ax CG and LE. I mean what is the difference between CG and NG, and LE and NE? Isn't any good character going to want to respect freedom? I figure your either going to be a proponent of law and good, or of good - whether its lawful or not. 
Evil means you look out for number one right? So one who is not all about chaos and slaughter (CE) will follow the law when it suits them, i.e. Evil. 

LN does make sense though... someone who blindly follows law and duty regardless of any other moral consequences.

CN? What is that? What's the difference between CN and CE?


----------



## med stud (May 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Whence came the idea CN was Malkavian?
> 
> CN is "I'm out for myself. I don't really like hurting people and don't go out of my way to do it, but if someone is caught in the crossfire...whatever. Sucks to be them, I guess. Laws and rules for suckers. Tradition is the man keeping you down. Just don't get between me and what I want, and we'll all get along fine."



Heh, it's funny. I had a patient last week that was one of the more notorious criminals in Sweden. He has a pronounced antisocial personality disorder (that is more or less the same as being a psychopath). He used exactly your reasoning when he explained how he viewed his crimes, except for the part about "the man". He had, during the course of his "career" hurt a LOT of people who he considered "being caught in a crossfire".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Heh, it's funny. I had a patient last week that was one of the more notorious criminals in Sweden. He has a pronounced antisocial personality disorder (that is more or less the same as being a psychopath). He used exactly your reasoning when he explained how he viewed his crimes, except for the part about "the man". He had, during the course of his "career" hurt a LOT of people who he considered "being caught in a crossfire".



Inquiring minds demand to know: What kind of medical student are or were you?!


----------



## Family (May 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Heh, it's funny. I had a patient last week that was one of the more notorious criminals in Sweden. He has a pronounced antisocial personality disorder (that is more or less the same as being a psychopath). He used exactly your reasoning when he explained how he viewed his crimes, except for the part about "the man". He had, during the course of his "career" hurt a LOT of people who he considered "being caught in a crossfire".




I told you that in confidence.


----------



## med stud (May 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Inquiring minds demand to know: What kind of medical student are or were you?!



Doctor (or physician if that's the right word). Right now I'm an intern in psychiatry.


----------



## med stud (May 18, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> I told you that in confidence.



You should learn to read the fine print


----------



## skipdog172 (May 18, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> The alignment system never had anything to do with giving D&D depth beyond killing things.  Most role playing games do just fine without an alignment system and many of them are far less associated with killing things and taking their stuff than D&D.  It's the desire of players, DMs and writers to tell stories and engage in genre emulation that is most responsible for bringing depth to most D&D games.  And the alignment system has never been necessary for that.  No one needs any alignment system to play a role, decide if a character is played consistently or know if there are consequences to actions.   Prior to AD&D, there was an even simpler three axis L-N-C system.  I do not recall that the games with that system were any less in depth than those in AD&D.  I do not think there is any relationship between the number of alignment axes and the depth of any version of D&D.  Let me add my voice to those who wish that the alignment system had been entirely removed (preferably by time travel from all previous editions, too).




I agree with these statements.

In my experience, all these aligments did was confuse players and make them think they needed to play a character in specific way.

I don't think a character having a certain alignment is necessary for the player to add as much depth to that character's personality as possible. If anything, I noticed players using their alignment as an excuse to do or not do something, when they really needed to be thinking more about their character, and how that character thinks, as opposed to what was written down on their character sheet. The players who tended to really play their character's personality well and really fleshed out the characters, often-times had contradicting alignments and really never payed much attention to them, some going as far as changing their alignment after playing the character for awhile.

The new system will be ok, and imo, having less is better than more. I don't want my players failing to flesh out their character because of an alignment written down on their sheet. I am sure it is not an issue with some players, but my group has always clung to their alignments to the point where it was often more of a hindrance than a help.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 18, 2008)

Flobby said:
			
		

> I' not sure how they are defining the alignments but it makes a lot of sense to ax CG and LE. I mean what is the difference between CG and NG, and LE and NE? Isn't any good character going to want to respect freedom? I figure your either going to be a proponent of law and good, or of good - whether its lawful or not.




Christ, for the upteenth time, Chaotic isn't "I HATE ALL LAWS ALL THE TIME.  ANARCHY WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"  Maybe Wizards axed the alignments because they need to dumb down their rules to appeal to players.

Chaotic Good is John Locke.  The only time laws are neccisary is when they're used to protect our freedoms.  That's it, that's the *only* time laws should exist.

Neutral Good teeters between lawful and chaotic.  Some laws are neccisary, some aren't.  Sometimes it's important to follow the law, sometimes it isn't.



> Evil means you look out for number one right? So one who is not all about chaos and slaughter (CE) will follow the law when it suits them, i.e. Evil.




Again, LE is easy to show in existance, and all it takes is *one* example and you can no longer say "It doesn't exist."  There's been PLENTY of "evil regimes" or "evil empires" in the real world to prove that wrong.

LN does make sense though... someone who blindly follows law and duty regardless of any other moral consequences.



> CN? What is that? What's the difference between CN and CE?




CN doesn't actively try to hurt people.  They just try to get on with their lives, but have more or less a disrespect for the law.  CN when it's _not_ at its extreme is that hippy next door that grows his own weed and hates the man trying to bring him down, but doesn't actively go out onto the street and gun people down.


----------



## Celebrim (May 18, 2008)

Flobby said:
			
		

> CN? What is that? What's the difference between CN and CE?




a) A chaotic neutral would only betray a friend if his life was at stake.  But a chaotic evil doesn't really have friends.  He has accomplises which he betrays the first time it seems profitable to do so.
b) A CN doesn't actively promote evil.  He avoids doing acts of great evil (or great good) unless there is an immediate and essential need to do so.  But a CE character believes evil is actually the best way and takes evil actions as his first choice.

Perhaps one of the easiest ways to see the difference is to not consider chaoticness for a moment and consider what universally separates good and evil.  

c) Suppose you believe that something like torture has absolute moral value.  In that case in your campaign, whether law or chaos, good people believe torture is always wrong, neutral people believe that torture is useful in extreme cases, and evil people believe torture is always right.  
d) Likewise with regards to justice, good people will tend to believe something less than 'an eye for an eye' is the ideal (mercy forgiveness), neutral people will believe that 'an eye for an eye' is the ideal (equity), and evil people will tend to believe that something more than 'an eye for an eye' is ideal (retribution).  
e) Chaotic good people will tend to say something like, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'* (active), CN's will tend to say something like 'Don't do unto others as you would not have done unto you.'  (passive) or 'Harm no one.  Do as you will.' (passive), and CE will tend to say, 'Seize the day.  Life belongs to those strong enough to take it.' (active)
d) When observing an injustice, a good character will tend to want to correct it even at a cost to himself (active).  A neutral character will tend to want to not get involved (passive).  An evil character will typically want to take part in it (active).

* Before someone wants to get into an argument over that which will get overly religious, let me point out that a typical criticism of that axiom is that it is impossible for an external observer without knowing the person to know whether they are following 'the golden rule' because the mandate 'as you would have done' is inherently personal.  It is thus in D&D terms a chaotic good code of honor.  I am not however making the statement that the person who famously made that statement was 'chaotic good' or any other claim about that person.


----------



## Celebrim (May 18, 2008)

skipdog172 said:
			
		

> In my experience, all these aligments did was confuse players and make them think they needed to play a character in specific way.




Heaven forbid that you'd have to play your character in a specific way when role playing.


----------



## Counterspin (May 18, 2008)

When that way is a poorly worded construct like alignment, yes, indeed, heaven forbid.


----------



## rhm001 (May 18, 2008)

I like the idea of trying to cut down on the rigidity of alignment. But if that's what you're shooting for, why bother to keep Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil? Everything else is a variation of Good and Evil, so why not those two? If Lawful Evil is within Evil, why isn't Lawful Good within Good? 

Maybe I can see Chaotic Evil as extreme/destructive enough that it's distinct, but Lawful Good? Really?


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 18, 2008)

I've always thought of Lawful Good as the jerkface samurai/knight who'll beat you for disrespecting them. I can't help but view the alignment as just as bad as Lawful Evil. XD


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 18, 2008)

skipdog172 said:
			
		

> In my experience, all these aligments did was confuse players and make them think they needed to play a character in specific way.




THen your players are idiots.

Alignment is supposed to change.  You don't go neutral good and then think "I MUST HAVE TEA AND CAKE WITH THE VICAR OR DIE!"  If your character is no longer neutral good, say they turn much more chaotic, then get this?  _The alignment changes to reflect that_.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 18, 2008)

Meh, I have always rid my games of my alignment all together. I just replace it with Virtue/Vice System.

I will probably incorporate Action Points/Milestones into it as well. A character indulges in a Vice he gains a Action Point, a character is detrimentally affected by pursuing his Virtue he gains a Action Point and a Milestone.


----------



## Family (May 18, 2008)

For fun: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~aaronson/alitest/aintro.html


----------



## Jack99 (May 18, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> For fun: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~aaronson/alitest/aintro.html




Meh, that's a boring test. I am true neutral....


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 18, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> THen your players are idiots.




None of that, please.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 18, 2008)

I am glad chaotic vanished from players choice... it was always an excuse to play as a jerk...

and its not so long ago where alignment was a strait jacket...


----------



## Derren (May 18, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> I am glad chaotic vanished from players choice... it was always an excuse to play as a jerk...




And now you have jerks picking the unaligned alignment.
A player doesn't become a jerk by picking a certain alignment. That has nothing to do with alignment at all.


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 18, 2008)

*So close...*

If you see the Chaos and Law as universal concepts, then you're probably going to have trouble with the old D&D alignment system.

The solution is to see only the Good-Evil axis as universal--as someone stated earlier, Good and Evil are forces in the universe, and how you act places you somewhere on that axis.  The concept of Good has an absolute, just as the concept of Evil.  Murder of another sentient being without any provocation is an evil act, everywhere.  Risking your life to save the life of another is a good act.  Yes--a country could decide that it is unlawful to save someone's life, or encourage the wholesale slaughter of innocents--but that would not make self-sacrifice 'evil' or murder 'good'.  That would only define those acts as lawful or unlawful. 

Chaos and Law, on the other hand, aren't universal, because laws change from culture to culture, country to country, state to state, religion to religion, etc.

So, to say you are Lawful, doesn't mean you obey every rule someone scrawls on a sign by the side of the road.  Lawful means you abide by a set of laws.  Period.  Those laws may be a combination of religious observances, moral leanings, customs from your home-country--whatever.  The point is that you follow them.

Chaotic, on the other hand, means that you do not abide by a set of laws--you can wear what you want, go where you want, eat what you want, cross the street when you want, etc etc. 

Acting lawful or unlawful is really independent of the Good-Evil axis.

It should also be stated that as you continue to act, your place on the Good-Evil and Law-Chaos axes change, so alignment can never be a straightjacket for a character.  

A character's actions define his or her alignment, not the other way around.  

In other words, a 'good' character is certainly free to hack a kitten apart to hear it scream--but at the cost of slipping on the Good-Evil axis toward Evil.  An 'evil' character is free to try to selflessly save said kitten--and by doing so would slip a little toward Good.  All characters have free will!  Alignments are merely a shorthand to describe how they would act in most cases based on how they've acted in the past.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (May 18, 2008)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> When that way is a poorly worded construct like alignment, yes, indeed, heaven forbid.



Poorly worded?  

In 1st edition, the PHB was sparse but clear, and the DMG was quite explicit in the descriptions and how to use them.  The 2nd edition PHB and DMG both have an entire chapter on alignment, with clear cut examples such as this:



			
				2nd Edition PHB said:
			
		

> *Chaotic Good*: Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.




The PHB for 3.5 is quite explicit, going so far as to give a 'template' for each alignment to guide players.  Chaotic Good, "Rebel"; Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"; Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"; and so on, with at least a paragraph on each.  Additionally, there are tips at the end such as, "Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit" and "Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil".

I mean, if you don't like alignment, fine.  If it works out well for your group to ignore it, that's great.  But let's not pretend every description of alignment is in some hidden appendix near psionics and the Random Harlot Table.

Additionally, I find it rather bizarre to hear complaints about alignment being this unreasonable straitjacket to play, but no one complains that the Wizard with 13 Str can't toss the Ancient Red dragon through a wall.  It's a chance to use a different frame of reference.  If, in real life, someone is the type to consider following the rules of paramount importance to a functioning society, this is a chance to try a Neutral or Chaotic mindset.  On the other hand, they can also play a Lawful character, if they prefer.

To answer a previous point, in many of the games that don't have an alignment system _per se_, there are still rules (with degrees of optionality) that present guidelines regarding character behaviour.  White Wolf's system of Nature and Demeanor may be a bit more open, but it is no less a guide to behaviour than alignment.  And like alignment, it is the starting point, not the sum total.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 18, 2008)

Excerpted from the WorldForge d20 Wiki (still under construction, as is the system)

*Alignment*
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is neither prescriptive nor a straitjacket for restricting the acts your character. A character does not act their alignment, rather their acts display their alignment. However alignment is not merely a measure of the views a character has it also shows which side if any they are associated with in the endless struggle between powerful immortals and material spirits of alignment that occur in the Outer Planes. Four major alignments in two axis, each with their own ethical framework. Alignment isn't being a snippy gossip or spitting in the customer's food. Most mortal creatures are Neutral, this represents the innate mixture of all alignments within them that prevent any singular alignment from becoming foremost. In order for such mortal creatures to become aligned away from Neutrality requires significant action.

*Chaos*
It is one of the fundamental forces of creation most accessible to mortals in denatured form, change. Pure Chaos is when 1+1=4, unfettered by purpose or regularity it is creation unbound from stability and in its pure form it can be terrifying and beautiful all in an instant. At a more practical level Chaos is the antithesis of systems or organization.  Chaos is not randomness but lack of adherence to an external process beyond itself. Those who are chaotic do not respect the structures making up a greater whole. While they may be forced to acknowledge and abide by the strictures of Order it is only through force and they will chafe and attempt to harm or topple that structure whenever feasible.

*Evil*
What is Evil? Evil isn't banal or a minor irritation, egging the neighbors house won't turn you evil. That NPC isn't evil because he feels angry and is mean to people. He's Evil because he steals children to sacrifice to his dark and hungry god. Or sets up caravans to be pillaged by raiders. When the orcs come he's the reason the gate was unbarred at just the wrong moment, and he prefers it that way. It's not kicking puppies for it's own sake. He knows exactly what he's doing and probably has several reasons for it. They could even be damned good reasons, tempting reasons. None of it can change those acts into anything other than an Evil.

*Good*
Good is eternal, it is the state of being in a morally proper relationship with respect to others. Throwing coppers to a beggar or helping a farmer raise a barn will not make you Good. Doing good acts so long as they do not impose hardship is neutrality. What makes one Good is when they do the proper thing even though it is dangerous. Defending the weak, upholding those who are downtrodden, throwing down those who are Evil. Being Good when it matters is likely to get you killed. That is nearly a definition of Good of itself, a character who does the right thing even though it may get him killed is Good.

*Neutrality*
Neutrality is not so much an alignment within itself as a state of equilibrium with the other four alignments. Most mortal creatures are Neutral, this represents the innate mixture of all alignments within them that prevent any singular alignment from becoming foremost. In order for such mortal creatures to become aligned away from Neutrality requires significant action. A good measure of Neutrality is that while characters will perform actions of various alignments those alignments are not so singular that the character will do regularly so when it imposes a great hardship or danger on the character.

*Order*
Creation has an underlying structure, all things act in accordance to their nature as parts of creation and may be apprehended by their place within the greater scheme. Order is not about legality though it creates laws, it is about patterns and how all things relate to one another. Ordered characters do not necessarily respect laws, indeed outside the universal laws of cosmic order they are malleable things that may be tainted by any number of disorderly precepts. Characters who have an Ordered component to their alignment seek to prevent breaches of cosmological law. For example breaking a contract is to such a character an act against Order as by breaking the contract it's place in the cosmic system have been weakened. Ordered characters will seek to form concrete systems of relationship between things and prevent things within the system from acting outside the defined patterns set by the system.

*Unaligned*
Unaligned is an inherently unnatural state. Even creatures with only minimal intelligence like animals have an alignment. To have none is to be disconnected from one of the fundamental forces of existence. Unaligned creatures come from or have been tainted by the influence of the Far Realm. An inimical place outside the cosmos whose influence can at times reach inside to effect its environs and inhabitants.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 18, 2008)

ZetaStriker said:
			
		

> I've always thought of Lawful Good as the jerkface samurai/knight who'll beat you for disrespecting them. I can't help but view the alignment as just as bad as Lawful Evil. XD




No, it's Optimus Prime.

It's Captain America.

It's Superman.

The portrayal of LG as a Jerkface Knight?  Those guys were LN.


----------



## Lackhand (May 19, 2008)

Sort of a tangent. Actually, just a tangent -- this is purely an alignment debate, and therefore Godwinned from the start. 

In my last campaign, I used a five-fold alignment system (sixfold, actually), which fit my needs perfectly. It basically divorces the "team" aspects of alignment from the behavioral ones, and couples the behavioral aspects of alignment with a societal norm defined within each "team".
I cribbed liberally from Magic (and Dusk):

Saintly: The "white" religion, closest to LG or LN, and related to the organized church this setting had; the alignment of knights and clerics of the good gods, and those who serve them. So long as the individual stuck to a code of honor that was within the societal norms for the church, they were fine -- tithing, charity, protecting other Saintlys.
(LG and worshippers, in 4e, of Pelor, Erathis, Melora, Tymora, Bane (eh. Shush. I like the greek mythological symbolism I've set up), Moradin, or Ioun. Those who actively worship Bane or Tymora end up different alignments...)

Pagan: The "green" religion, closest to CG, CN, or NN; the followers of the Old Ways and 
those who live outside the bounds of The Church, believers in the essential goodness of everything and the perverting effects of Order on the common Good.
(G and worshippers of Corellon, Sehanine, and Lolth; Kord and Gruumsh; followers of The Shalm; various mystery cults.)

Scholastic: The "blue" religion, closest to LN or NN (but got along reasonably well with Pagans, other than their mystic trappings). Scientifically minded, unconcerned with that which cannot be comprehended, but devoted to reasonably pure pursuits in any case. They often practice relativistic morals and concentrate on side effects of their actions and personal introspection and comprehension.
(Unaligned. Worshippers of Ioun who miss the point; this alignment probably won't surive into 4e for me. It worked for my last campaign, though  Followers of the Dragon Gods go here too.)

Cultic: The "red" religion, closest to CN, NE, or CE; similarly mystic to the Pagans, but with a moral compass which points "south" more often than not. Required to engage in distasteful acts for their gods and goddesses. Kind of incomprehensible because they don't subscribe to any version of The Common Good but instead reject that as a useful metric, accepting instead the furtherance of an idea completely divorced from the good/evil ethical lens (such as The Triumph of the Blood God or the Eradication of the Surface Elves or so forth).
(CE or Unaligned; The Raven Queen, followers of Gruumsh, Lolth, demons and other false gods; Tiamat, monster cults, and false prophets)

Nihilistic: The "black" religion, closest to LE. What happens when Scholastic turns evil, or Cultic keeps the obsession but loses the mystic trappings; as such, they're the most comprehensible because their acts make a twisted kind of sense. They have a similar code of conduct to Saintly, but tend to overemphasize ends over means -- individuals of great worth over common good; long term over short term -- and to be convinced of the rightness of their moral calculus.
(E. Followers of Bane formost, or Zehir, or those who deny the gods openly, secretly, or unwittingly (Asmodeus...?  ).



So, not to put too fine a point on it... I can understand where the 4e alignments come from... because I've _been_ there and I've _done_ that. It worked like a charm


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 19, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Chaotic Good is John Locke.  The only time laws are neccisary is when they're used to protect our freedoms.  That's it, that's the *only* time laws should exist.




  Sure . . . _if_ you grant the assumption that alignment refers to a sociopolitical philosophy.

*That*, I think, is one of the big problems with the Lawful/Chaotic axis. The game has never reached a consensus on whether it applies to one's personal behavior (organized vs. free-spirited), political philosophy (highly structured society vs. minimally structured) or even cosmological philosophy (ordered universe vs. universe as random). Hence, there's no clear agreement on what the terms mean.

  Thus, I'm happy to see universalized Lawful/Chaotic alignments sent to the slaughterhouse; while people can argue about what fits under Good and Evil, you don't see the confusion on what the terms are supposed to mean in general. If Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are defined clearly as their own thing, I think they can help the game, especially since they don't have to fit into some overall Law vs. Chaos dichotomy.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 19, 2008)

Someone respond to/argue with my last post please.


----------



## Trainz (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Someone respond to/argue with my last post please.




Look at post #46.

You're welcome.


----------



## Lackhand (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Someone respond to/argue with my last post please.



"Sounds good to me"


----------



## Family (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> The old and new systems aren't mutually exclusive.  The new one is just the more functional one, because it gets rid of certain assumptions that don't really apply to actual decision-making.




I say that alignment is okay for NPCs but for PCs their motivation is more important to the role playing. Not only is it more maluable but it's also more immediate.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> No, it's Optimus Prime.
> 
> It's Captain America.
> 
> ...




I'd just like to point out that from the perspective of a CN character, there is little to no fundamental difference between any of the lawful alignments.  All of them as far as a chaotic neutral character is likely to be concerned are dangerous annoying busybodies that will try to force thier beliefs on you.  If you are chaotic neutral, one of the worst sins one can practice is trying to force your beliefs on someone else.  Indeed, even believing that someone else ought to share your beliefs is seen by the CN as dangerous, misguided, and coersive.  To the CN, 'fanaticism' is the source of the worlds evil.  The CN believes that anyone who is subjecting his will and his identity to an idea, external code, or group is dangerous, irrational, and potentially violent.  

Since beliefs that are based described in D&D terms as 'chaotic neutral' are widely accepted in some circles, it wouldn't be surprising to hear people commenting on the D&D alignment system from a CN bias.

I mean, IIRL I don't even believe 'law' or 'chaos' exist where as I take 'good' and 'evil' to be pointers to some Platonism address space of absolute reality.  Likewise, I don't believe IIRL that there is actual neutral ground between 'good' and 'evil' just varying shades of increasing rightness and increasing wrongness and that neutrality is wholly staked out in that area of increasing wrongness.  But these are my philosophical biases based on what I believe, and what I believe doesn't describe a nine bucket system at all.  Nonetheless, I can see that various philosophies can be interestingly categorized by the D&D system and that other people can hold these beliefs in intellectually rigorous ways.  So I try my best to not let my biases interfere with the classification scheme.  If I did, it would create a scheme in which there was an alignment you were clearly 'supposed' to have, and beliefs that you were clearly supposed to hold and that would interfere with the sort of moral exploration a more open system allows.


----------



## Counterspin (May 19, 2008)

Stormbringer -I didn't say the alignment rules were hidden, or that they were too short.  I said they were poorly written.  And since alignment is one of the constant sources of argumentation about the 3.5 rules, I feel confident in that assertion.  Clarity is a purely pragmatic thing, and a lot of people who read the alignment rules got vastly differing ideas of what actions fall where along the two axes.  Thus it is poorly written.


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 19, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> No, it's Optimus Prime.
> 
> It's Captain America.
> 
> ...




Captain America is NG, as proven by his willingness to rebel during the Civil War. 







			
				3.5 SRD said:
			
		

> "He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.."



 NG are helpers, which fits a hero just as well as anything the LG description has to say, but although there's some crossover, the second half of the NG description clearly shows where he fits in.

Other than that, all examples, including the bossy knight, are all Lawful Good to a T. 







			
				3.5 SRD said:
			
		

> "She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. *A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished*."



 Being vocal about their beliefs and punishing those who go against them is in the nature of Lawful Good characters, not Neutral Good. They just wont go against their code when divvying out said justice, and depending on the region, person, organization and whatever else might influence someone's perceptions, there's a lot that could alter their moral code beyond "I don't like people who kick kittens".


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (May 19, 2008)

I don't think that Nazis, Amoral Businessmen and Corrupt Lawyers qualify as Lawful Evil. They are more like Organized Evil.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (May 19, 2008)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Stormbringer -I didn't say the alignment rules were hidden, or that they were too short.  I said they were poorly written.  And since alignment is one of the constant sources of argumentation about the 3.5 rules, I feel confident in that assertion.  Clarity is a purely pragmatic thing, and a lot of people who read the alignment rules got vastly differing ideas of what actions fall where along the two axes.  Thus it is poorly written.



As I demonstrated, it was not poorly written.  I can name literally thousands of writings that are the constant source of argumentation on any number of topics.  That has nothing to do with them being poorly written.

What a lot of people reading the alignment rules seem to have a problem with is that they didn't really take half the effort to understand them as they did to understand 'Wisdom', which is a limitation on your character, whereas 'Alignment' is a limitation on the player, and that became less acceptable over the years.  Despite the fact that 'Wisdom: 16' and 'Chaotic Good' are exactly equal in describing the aspects of a character to which they are related.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

ZetaStriker said:
			
		

> Captain America is NG, as proven by his willingness to rebel during the Civil War.




a) I don't think you can take a willingness to rebel as proof in and of itself of a non-lawful identity.  America's most famous rebel, Robert E. Lee, is an example of a lawful minded individual who is forced to rebel because of his allegiances ultimately bring him into conflict with lawful authority - which proves not to hold his highest allegiance.  It's not that you are loyal to lawful authority which determines whether you are lawful, but whether you are loyal to an externally recognized code.
b) Captain America's alignment has evolved over the years in responce to his writers evolving attitude toward America itself.  He's also been portrayed in different ways in different alternate universes.  
c) Ok, despite all that, I grant you that Cap' is NG in most incarnations.


----------



## gribble (May 19, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> So, not to put too fine a point on it... I can understand where the 4e alignments come from... because I've _been_ there and I've _done_ that. It worked like a charm




I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think:

LG = White
G = Green
U = Blue
E = Black
CE = Red

And before the enivitable flames start, no I'm not a magic player, and yes, I realise some of those probably aren't "perfect fits" (depending on how drastically 4e has changed the alignments of course).

It was just something that jumped out at me...


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 19, 2008)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Look at post #46.
> You're welcome.



Wrong one.
Read #81, and argue with it, please, it's boring if it's just accepted by everyone.

Thank you.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 19, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> ...We need to check the full description of each alignment...




I suspect that whatever book it is that will cover gnomes will also have a section covering an expansion of the alignment system.


----------



## Family (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Wrong one. Read #81, and argue with it, please, it's boring if it's just accepted by everyone.




I disagree I think it IS the right one.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

Well, since you begged for disagreement...



			
				muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Pretty sure WotC is changing alignments to focus more on how the types of actions characters take rather than what they are.




For mortals, there is no real distinction between the two.  Since mortals aren't innately aligned, being made of prime material substance which itself isn't aligned, then the alignment of a character is simply the actions that they take.  Granted, there personality might give them a propensity to particular actions, but that doesn't mean for example that all miserly characters are evil or innately evil.



> I can see Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good characters, but not Lawfully Evil actions or Chaotically Good actions.




You can't see an action that is both chaotic and good?  You can't see an action that is both lawful and evil?



> For good action, you can either do something because you think it's right (Good), or because someone (a law perhaps) tells you that it's right (Lawful Good).  You can't chaotically cause good because goodness requires will.




Doing something because you personally think it is right is not genericly good, but chaotic goodness.  Generic goodness would see that there is a balance between external authority and personal conviction and that right understanding could come from either path, or perhaps should come from a combination of both.



> For evil action, you can either do something because you want to help yourself somehow (Evil), or because you think that evil is good in and of itself (Chaotic Evil).  I've never heard of a law specifically designed to promote evil (maybe in Hell...but probably not).




Well, as Cicero says, rarely does anyone do evil to achieve evil ends.  Rather they do evil because they think that there will be some good profit to it.  A society can feel that evil actions are justified in order to obtain the security and prosperity of its citizens.  That's a lawful evil mindset.  For example, any lawful society will tend to reasons that loyalty of the citizens to one another is a virtue (because for example they will act responcibly and generously to one another in times of hardship), and thus needs to be promoted by the law.  A lawful evil society will reason that the great mass of individuals are weak and worthless, and to make of them the sort of citizens that make a nation truly great they must be subject to harsh discipline.  Hense, any signs of disloyalty must be promptly and harshly dealt with.   Likewise, any lawful society will reason that crime is a great scourge on the community.  A lawful evil society will reason that the best way to deter crime is to punish criminals punantively so that the punishment greatly exceeds the rewards of the crime.

Neither lawful evil nor chaotic evil are actively promoting evil for evil's sake.  Rather both believe that the best way to achieve good is through evil.  The chaotic evil person believes that evil is the best way to obtain personal security, freedom, and enjoyment.  A lawful evil person believes that evil is the best way to obtain a secure, prosperous, and productive society.  Only Nuetral Evil, nihilism if you will, is actively promoting evil for evils sake.



> Slavery for instance isn't designed to be evil, even if it is.  Therefore you don't follow the law in the efforts of supporting evil, but because it aligns with an evil mind.




You earlier said you couldn't imagine a chaotic good act.  Imagine that there exists a society which is generally lawful good and accepting of slavery.  Lawful good members of this society do not believe that slavery is in and of itself evil, but do believe that slaves must be treated respectfully and compassionately by thier masters.  Slavery in the ideal of this society consists of a sort of adoption into the family of the slave master in a state which is honorable and only slightly inferior to being of the master's own blood.  Perhaps in the ideal it works.  But in practice, corruption and cruelty and negligence is common.  Now a Chaotic Good member of this society would see slavery as profoundly evil, and would very much disagree with the normative thinking of the land.  A lawful good member of society, percieving that some sort of abuse might be occuring in a household would be motivated to deal with it according to the standards of the land.  The chaotic good member would be sorely tempted to break the law, steal the slave from its master, and transport it outside of the society where it might find freedom - a course of action that the lawful good person with allegiances to the society would never approve of even if he understood the motivation.  

Similarly, a person that kidnaps children from abusive homes or who illegally hacks into systems to expose child pornographers are cases of actions that (assuming a society that is generally good) can best be explained as chaotic good.

These are of course extreme cases.  Not every chaotic good action involves breaking some law, but it is certainly true that chaotic good actions are marked by thier lack of concern for what anyone else thinks about the action or how the action will be percieved.



> As an aside: I always thought that the idea behind Law and Chaos "warring" against each other was ridiculous.  What motivation would there be?  Ordered minds understand that Law can't exist without Chaos, and the essence of Chaos is mindless irrational action--it shouldn't care.  Even templars of Law and Chaos only work if you give Law and Chaos some moral-based reason to oppose each other, and then you dip into Good vs. Evil.
> Lawful Good and Lawful Evil ganging up against Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil.  Uh-huh.




Imagine extreme law as an attempt to bring the universe into stasis, whereas chaos is the motivation to always oppose things that bring the universe into stasis.

Making that statement really makes me think I should finish my essays on the Slaad Lords.  The essense of chaos maybe mindless irrational action, but such can only exist in a completely chaotic universe.  The minute you introduce some sort of order, chaos itself becomes more structured and more interesting than that.  Similarly, the essense of law may be stasis, but the minute things in the universe start changing law itself starts evolving to cope.

I will say that the law/chaos divide much more lends itself to the interpretation that one cannot exist without the other than the good/evil divide does, since the end state of good/evil is distinguishable but the end state of law/chaos both involve sterility.

Anyway, its quite easy to imagine situations where Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil team up against the Lawful side of the table.  Slavery is going to be the obvious case in point.  Lawfulness doesn't see anything particularly wrong with slavery in and of itself.  To Chaotic thinking, slavery is one of the worst possible vices.  It's quite possible to imagine chaotic good revolutionaires working along side chaotic evil ones to overthrow some slave based society they mutually abhor even if the society itself isn't notably evil except in the question of slavery.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 19, 2008)

To me, chaotic means breaking the rules because you're breaking the rules, not for another reason.

If you just break the rules because that's the easiest way to do good - that's just being good.

Chaotic neutral means going out of your way to break the rules without regard to the moral implications.

Chaotic good means going out of your way to break the rules and do good.

So, that said, I think that any group who can handle having members that fit that mould can probably work out some way to describe the alignment on their own.

Personally I will only mourn the loss of lawful evil - by far the most workable of the evil alignments in a group (of evil OR good characters).


----------



## Lackhand (May 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Stuff



I know they're just examples, but a lot of them hinge on a society that accepts slavery as lawful but blank on the scale between Good and Evil.

This is D&D, where there was a series of modules, Against the Slavers.

Sure, there are societies where slavery is tolerated and not big-E evil, but their slavery tends to be very different from the sort that the CG kind of character will be going vigilante on.

Accept as a moral precept that slavery, while expedient, is always Evil (or, at best, unaligned.  ) -- what changes?


----------



## Family (May 19, 2008)

Minsc: Evil 'round every corner...careful not to step in any. 
Minsc: Butt kicking for goodness! 
Minsc: Evil, meet my sword! SWORD, MEET EVIL!


----------



## Starbuck_II (May 19, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> Minsc: Evil 'round every corner...careful not to step in any.
> Minsc: Butt kicking for goodness!
> Minsc: Evil, meet my sword! SWORD, MEET EVIL!



Minsc: Evil throw yourself on my sword; I will not be as gentle.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 19, 2008)

Chaotic Good was probably the most popular alignment, yet it was also probably the most incoherant.  

Good opposes Evil so logically Chaos oppose Law.  But what kind of Good character can actively oppose Law as a matter of principle?

So who is CG?  Often Robin Hood was given as an example of CG personality.  That's BS.  Robin Hood is loyal to King Richard.  As soon as the tyrant is overthrowned, he's back home enjoying the rightful rule of King Richard.  He's not opposed to Order, just to tyranny.  Some characterization of RObin are outright Lawful.  Richard is the legitimate king after all, and version of Robin Hood where this is the driving force behind his actions can be argued to be Lawful Good.  The others would have been Neutral Good. 

What kind of genuinely good character could keep fighting against the government if is a reasonably just one?  But then What kind of genuinely Chaotic character could stop opposing Law?

And so I doubt you could present me a single character who was both truly Good and truly Chaotic.

---

Sort of the same case can be made for Lawful Evil, but from an other angle : Can you truly be Evil if you are truly Lawful?  The interests of one clash often with the other's and something has to give.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Anyway, its quite easy to imagine situations where Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil team up against the Lawful side of the table.  Slavery is going to be the obvious case in point.  Lawfulness doesn't see anything particularly wrong with slavery in and of itself.  To Chaotic thinking, slavery is one of the worst possible vices.  It's quite possible to imagine chaotic good revolutionaires working along side chaotic evil ones to overthrow some slave based society they mutually abhor even if the society itself isn't notably evil except in the question of slavery.




Well, I don't think anyone has been doubting the ability of good players and writers to make decent sausage out of the tripe that was the 9 alignment system, but I'd just like to try a more fit ethical meat as the basis for my DnD in this next edition.

This paragraph demonstrates as well as anything else, save possibly for the ridiculousity that was the Blood War, why despite my respect for the great efforts that good writers went to in order to work with the nine alignments I long for a different moral frame.

Fine you've pinned something under lawfullness and that's slavery.  Why?  There's nothing more chaotic than the slave trade.  It takes terrible laws to justify and administer most forms of it.  From the perspective of law there should be little as abhorent as slavery.  From the chaotic perspective it's perfectly justifiable.  It's the ultimate demonstration of the individual as the source of power.  The state doesn't own the slave, I obey no contract with the slave, and I have no cause to negotiate or in any way have my individuality impinged upon by the slave.  At the same time I have opportunity, because of the slave, to manifest my individuality in new and glorious ways.  The Lawful and Chaotic axis is so ethically annemic that it's entirely up to the writer to determine what falls where.

If I can easily picture chaotic evil and chaotic good characters working together to fight the 'lawful types' its because those alignments are such poor ethical categories in the first place.  Good and evil work better but because we put them on the same footing as the other two we cheapen them and the ethical work they could be used to achieve.  At heart the reason I can picture it 'working' is because I've lived a life inundated in bad writing and poor ethical thinking.

There's no reason to believe that it will stop with the end of the 9 alignment system, but at least we don't have to start with it.


----------



## gribble (May 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Anyway, its quite easy to imagine situations where Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil team up against the Lawful side of the table.  Slavery is going to be the obvious case in point.  Lawfulness doesn't see anything particularly wrong with slavery in and of itself.  To Chaotic thinking, slavery is one of the worst possible vices.  It's quite possible to imagine chaotic good revolutionaires working along side chaotic evil ones to overthrow some slave based society they mutually abhor even if the society itself isn't notably evil except in the question of slavery.




This is a great idea for a campaign! The PCs are escaped slaves, fighting against the LG/LN empire in an altruistic (well, mostly) campaign to free the rest of the slaves. Of course, they have shadowy backers, whose true motive (the downfall of the empire) isn't readily apparent until later in the campaign, making for a great ethical quandry at the climax when they have to choose sides.

If it's possible in 4e, great. If not, it'd still make for an awesome PRPG campaign... thanks for the inspiration!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 19, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> So who is CG?




The French Resistance in WW2.  Actually, even Robin Hood counts.

He was loyal to the King, yes, but the _King wasn't in power_.  Robin Hood still flagrantly disobeyed the set laws of the land.  That's chaotic.  And he did it for good reasons.

_Bam_.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 19, 2008)

On the note of chaotic good and evil working together, they'd both easily team up to topple an overbearing tyrant/king/government official.  Lawful good and lawful evil would begrudgingly join one another to rid the world of a group of rampaging demons.

The idea of "You don't have imagination because you have to go by the rules" is the wrong one to take.  Instead, the _rules_ don't have imagination if they can't see why lawful would team up with lawful irregardless of good and evil to fight chaos.


----------



## La Bete (May 19, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The French Resistance in WW2.  Actually, even Robin Hood counts.
> 
> He was loyal to the King, yes, but the _King wasn't in power_.  Robin Hood still flagrantly disobeyed the set laws of the land.  That's chaotic.  And he did it for good reasons.
> 
> _Bam_.





French resistance? Umm.. No.

Robin Hood? Which Robin Hood are you referring to?


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 19, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The French Resistance in WW2.  Actually, even Robin Hood counts.
> 
> He was loyal to the King, yes, but the _King wasn't in power_.  Robin Hood still flagrantly disobeyed the set laws of the land.  That's chaotic.  And he did it for good reasons.
> 
> _Bam_.





Are you kidding me?  

By that reasoning all these people turned LG the moment their side won.  It's silly.  You can be lawful and fight the Usurper.  In fact, it's your _duty!_  You seem to be one of those who mistook Lawful Good for Lawful stupid.  No way is a paladin standing by whilel evil prince John is usurping the throne.  He's leading the charge against him!  And what about Richard Lionheart himself?  Is he CG too since he is fighting the current leader of the land?  

Maybe the usurper is edicting laws, but these are not the legitimate laws.  Lawful Good would tend to go berserk at this situation.  Lawful Neutral were the one who would could have accepted it.  Assuming they were playing fast and loose with the rules of succession, which is a bit against character.   

And fighting Nazis in the french resistance doesn't make you automatically good,.  It could, but it's more likely that your just a patriot pissed off that foreigners have invaded your country and are threatening your family and neighbours.  Most of them would be unaligned in modern 4e parlance.


----------



## Family (May 19, 2008)

Malcolm Reynolds: "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


----------



## pemerton (May 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Imagine that there exists a society which is generally lawful good and accepting of slavery.  Lawful good members of this society do not believe that slavery is in and of itself evil



I hit a stumbling block at about this point in your example.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It's quite possible to imagine chaotic good revolutionaires working along side chaotic evil ones to overthrow some slave based society they mutually abhor even if the society itself isn't notably evil except in the question of slavery.



I actually find this very hard to imagine. In the real world we have actual examples of those who fought against slavery: Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, John Brown. Who am I invited to imagine as their Chaotic Evil comrades?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 19, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me?
> 
> By that reasoning all these people turned LG the moment their side won.  It's silly.  You can be lawful and fight the Usurper.  In fact, it's your _duty!_  You seem to be one of those who mistook Lawful Good for Lawful stupid.  No way is a paladin standing by whilel evil prince John is usurping the throne.  He's leading the charge against him!  And what about Richard Lionheart himself?  Is he CG too since he is fighting the current leader of the land?
> 
> ...




It's not that Robin Hood went against Prince John, it's how he did it.

Going against a usurper may not immidiately ring the CHAOTIC lights, but banditry?  Are you honestly going to tell me banditry is not a chaotic action?

Also, fighting Nazis may not automatically equate to good, but I'm pretty sure defending your homeland, your neighbors, and your family, is.


----------



## fuindordm (May 19, 2008)

Byronic said:
			
		

> The X.Neutral alignments in 3.x can also be good for completely amoral races (races that don't judge things by good or evil, possible the Ealdrin race).




Heh.

"If I don't make it, tell my wife... Hello."


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (May 19, 2008)

Me, I'm not using the chaotic/lawful and evil/good grid. 

I'm using the conservative/progressive and self-centered/altruistic grid, and it works like a charm.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

The problem with Lawful Good and Lawful Evil seems to be there are always inherent conflicts.

There are laws that can be used for evil - racist laws, laws that allow waging war against innocents. But how can a Lawful Good character stay lawful and good in the presence of such laws?

Doing evil also can break laws and order. To be "succesful" at being evil you need to lie and cheat occasionally. There are laws that stand in your way. 

These conflicts are certainly interesting, but are they a "strength" of the alignment system? If I can't really keep my alignment because there are situations where the components of it are at odds, is it a good descriptor?

You can avoid these conflicts if you remove "Law/Chaos" as a separate axis and integrate them with good/evil.

Lawful Good men are people that uphold justice and fairness. They support the law of the land as long as they also uphold good ideals. If not, they will not just ignore them, they will fight them and institute an order that works for good.

Evil people care for themselves. Justice or Fairness doesn't matter, as long as it helps them. 

Chaotic Evil are worse - they despise Justice or Fairness, and want to destroy the order as it is.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

The Mirrorball Man said:
			
		

> Me, I'm not using the chaotic/lawful and evil/good grid.
> 
> I'm using the conservative/progressive and self-centered/altruistic grid, and it works like a charm.



That sounds actually like a good idea. It seems to create a lot less conflict with what constitutes "lawful" behavior.


----------



## Family (May 19, 2008)

The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault? 
Mal: I don't murder children. 
The Operative: I do. If I have to. 
Mal: Why? Do you even know why they sent you? 
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin. 
Mal: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world? 
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The problem with Lawful Good and Lawful Evil seems to be there are always inherent conflicts.
> 
> There are laws that can be used for evil - racist laws, laws that allow waging war against innocents. But how can a Lawful Good character stay lawful and good in the presence of such laws?
> 
> ...




Lawful doesn't literally mean "Must uphold every law EVER OR YOU FALL IMMIDIATELY EVERY LAW FOR ALL TIME!"

But if a law is evil, then a lawful good person works to change the law or better the society.

And lawful evil is probably far more terrifying then chaotic evil is, because chaotic evil is easy to quantify as a human being: Oh, they're a psychopath.  But a willingness to use the law to inflict harm on others takes _great_ deals of premeditation, and it takes a lot of potentially non-evil people to just shrug and go with it.

Again, lawful evil exists.  I'm pretty sure it's against the law in Germany to say otherwise.

...Heh, "4e BANNED FROM GERMANY."


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (May 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That sounds actually like a good idea. It seems to create a lot less conflict with what constitutes "lawful" behavior.



It works, but it's less "cosmic" than the classic alignement system, so it's not for everyone.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Lawful doesn't literally mean "Must uphold every law EVER OR YOU FALL IMMIDIATELY EVERY LAW FOR ALL TIME!"



True, but there is still a conflict. And the cause of the myriad of Paladin alignment threads (there are other causes, but considering the infinite amount of Paladin threads...). It is an awkward aspect of the law/chaos and good/evil axis. If the alignments are supposed to be helpful descriptors for personality, behavior or just moral concepts (even if not complete ones), they should not have such a conflict. 



> But if a law is evil, then a lawful good person works to change the law or better the society.



Put at the extreme - how can changing the laws be lawful behaviour? In todays countries, this might work - there are laws that allow us to change the laws in most constitutions. But in a monarchy, there might be only one person that is actually allowed to change the laws. And if he's not listening to you (because you are a Knight of the Shining Order, and he is a devil worshipper), you can't change the laws in a lawful manner. That's an interesting conflict, but not a sign that the alignment descriptors are all that helpful to create a consistent definition. 



> Again, lawful evil exists. I'm pretty sure it's against the law in Germany to say otherwise.



I know where you getting at, but descriptors like Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good are not part of German Law. 



> And lawful evil is probably far more terrifying then chaotic evil is, because chaotic evil is easy to quantify as a human being: Oh, they're a psychopath. But a willingness to use the law to inflict harm on others takes great deals of premeditation, and it takes a lot of potentially non-evil people to just shrug and go with it.



Is it? I found the idea of someone going around killing people and possibly aiming to destroy existence pretty terrifying. A dictator 's behavior I might at least predict, and there's a chance I could end up on "his side", or at least a side he doesn't care about. 
(Was Centauri Emperor Cartagia lawful evil or chaotic evil? In 4E, he's certainly chaotic evil...)



> It works, but it's less "cosmic" than the classic alignement system, so it's not for everyone.



Yes. It is definitely more a personality descriptor now, then a "ethic and morals"-descriptor.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Put at the extreme - how can changing the laws be lawful behaviour? In todays countries, this might work - there are laws that allow us to change the laws in most constitutions. But in a monarchy, there might be only one person that is actually allowed to change the laws. And if he's not listening to you (because you are a Knight of the Shining Order, and he is a devil worshipper), you can't change the laws in a lawful manner. That's an interesting conflict, but not a sign that the alignment descriptors are all that helpful to create a consistent definition.



This is why they should have called it Order not Law.  You're get Law in the cosmic sense mixed up with legality, which is an entirely different thing.  As to how can changing the laws be lawful?  This isn't about legality, the evil tyrant is a font of Order.  But so can be anyone else who takes his place can be a font of Order too if they build a new set of legal and behavioral structures in its place.  This is why an LG paladin is compelled to strike down the tyrant.  Because his nature is such that he wishes to bring about a Good kind of Order.

*Order*
Creation has an underlying structure, all things act in accordance to their nature as parts of creation and may be apprehended by their place within the greater scheme. Order is not about legality though it creates laws, it is about patterns and how all things relate to one another. Ordered characters do not necessarily respect laws, indeed outside the universal laws of cosmic order they are malleable things that may be tainted by any number of disorderly precepts. Characters who have an Ordered component to their alignment seek to prevent breaches of cosmological law. For example breaking a contract is to such a character an act against Order as by breaking the contract it's place in the cosmic system have been weakened. Ordered characters will seek to form concrete systems of relationship between things and prevent things within the system from acting outside the defined patterns set by the system.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 19, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> I disagree I think it IS the right one.



Doesn't seem to argue any points.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> For mortals, there is no real distinction between the two.  Since mortals aren't innately aligned, being made of prime material substance which itself isn't aligned, then the alignment of a character is simply the actions that they take.  Granted, there personality might give them a propensity to particular actions, but that doesn't mean for example that all miserly characters are evil or innately evil.



The previous intuition of what alignment was was that it was prescriptive, whereas the new one is, in my guesstimation, meant to be seen as descriptive.  Evinced by the lack of powers that target specific alignments.



> You can't see an action that is both chaotic and good?  You can't see an action that is both lawful and evil?



Chaotic/good and lawful/evil, sure.  Chaotically good and lawfully evil, no.



> Doing something because you personally think it is right is not genericly good, but chaotic goodness.  Generic goodness would see that there is a balance between external authority and personal conviction and that right understanding could come from either path, or perhaps should come from a combination of both.



What?  We're talking about actions.  You don't choose to commit to an action in line with your personal convictions because it's in balance with external authority, if you did you're some sort of all-knowing robot.  If ultimately you will choose actions more in line with your personal convictions than external ideals, you'd be "Good."



> Well, as Cicero says, rarely does anyone do evil to achieve evil ends.  Rather they do evil because they think that there will be some good profit to it.



Granted.



> A society can feel that evil actions are justified in order to obtain the security and prosperity of its citizens.  That's a lawful evil mindset.



Now we get into the ignorance argument.  Your contention is that lawful evil societies are attempting to do good, and using evil methods to enforce the good.  If said society has no indication that they aren't right, how are they acting out of evil intent?  Much like a baby, pushing another baby down stairs because it doesn't understand that falling down the stairs will hurt the other baby.
Like eating meat, maybe the action turns out to have evil consequences.  But it isn't an evil action.  It's merely ignorance.



> Neither lawful evil nor chaotic evil are actively promoting evil for evil's sake.  Rather both believe that the best way to achieve good is through evil.  The chaotic evil person believes that evil is the best way to obtain personal security, freedom, and enjoyment.  A lawful evil person believes that evil is the best way to obtain a secure, prosperous, and productive society.  Only Nuetral Evil, nihilism if you will, is actively promoting evil for evils sake.



I think we have very different ideas of what an evil action is.  I believe that doing evil requires being conscious that you're doing evil.  Otherwise everything breaks down.



> Slavery in the ideal of this society consists of a sort of adoption into the family of the slave master in a state which is honorable and only slightly inferior to being of the master's own blood.  Perhaps in the ideal it works.



It doesn't.



> But in practice, corruption and cruelty and negligence is common.  Now a Chaotic Good member of this society would see slavery as profoundly evil, and would very much disagree with the normative thinking of the land.  A lawful good member of society, percieving that some sort of abuse might be occuring in a household would be motivated to deal with it according to the standards of the land.  The chaotic good member would be sorely tempted to break the law, steal the slave from its master, and transport it outside of the society where it might find freedom - a course of action that the lawful good person with allegiances to the society would never approve of even if he understood the motivation.



Lawfully good actions don't require allegiance to society, but rather to goodness in general.  If this hypothetically hesitating LG person is stupid and thinks that slavery is a law that promotes good, then yeah, they can still be Lawful Good.
But slavery is an evil practice.  Smart Lawful Good people would understand this and do everything in their power to change the laws.  Meanwhile, every other type of good person who had an interest (under the old system, Neutral or Chaotic Good) would be attempting to free the slaves.  That's because they're Good, not because they're Chaotic/Good.



> Similarly, a person that kidnaps children from abusive homes or who illegally hacks into systems to expose child pornographers are cases of actions that (assuming a society that is generally good) can best be explained as chaotic good.



Best explained by simply Good.  They aren't random actions, they have a reason that has nothing to do with Chaos.
See, the definition of Chaotic as Champions-Freedom doesn't really help because any Good person should be opposed to Evil.  A Lawful Good person shouldn't break down a door to stop horrible child abuse they know is happening, because they don't want to break someone else's property?  Of course they break down the door, even if it isn't "lawful."  So the pre-4E alignment could give no indication of the actions of the person, and is thus kind of worthless.



> These are of course extreme cases.  Not every chaotic good action involves breaking some law, but it is certainly true that chaotic good actions are marked by thier lack of concern for what anyone else thinks about the action or how the action will be percieved.



Sounds a heck of a lot like old-style Neutral Good to me.  What a shocker that they seem to blend together so well.



> Imagine extreme law as an attempt to bring the universe into stasis, whereas chaos is the motivation to always oppose things that bring the universe into stasis.



We can agree to disagree that Law and Chaos are intelligent elemental forces.  I think it's weird to assume that the randomness as an abstract concept has an agenda, but maybe I'm weird.



> Making that statement really makes me think I should finish my essays on the Slaad Lords.  The essense of chaos maybe mindless irrational action, but such can only exist in a completely chaotic universe.  The minute you introduce some sort of order, chaos itself becomes more structured and more interesting than that.  Similarly, the essense of law may be stasis, but the minute things in the universe start changing law itself starts evolving to cope.



The essence of law and chaos don't change based on their "proximity" to each other; you literally cannot change or oppose either, ever, because they aren't things, just inalterable ways the universe operates.



> Anyway, its quite easy to imagine situations where Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil team up against the Lawful side of the table.  Slavery is going to be the obvious case in point.  Lawfulness doesn't see anything particularly wrong with slavery in and of itself.  To Chaotic thinking, slavery is one of the worst possible vices.  It's quite possible to imagine chaotic good revolutionaires working along side chaotic evil ones to overthrow some slave based society they mutually abhor even if the society itself isn't notably evil except in the question of slavery.



The problem with slavery isn't that it's lawful, but that it's evil.


----------



## med stud (May 19, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> equate to good, but I'm pretty sure defending your homeland, your neighbors, and your family, is.



That would mean that the Nazis were good when they were fighting the Western allies on German ground. What would that make of the Western allies? Would they be evil because they invaded Germany? Neutral? Good, so that good Nazis were fighting good Americans and British?

I don't think your argumentation holds. Not that it's easy making a sound argument based on the nine D&D alignments when discussing the real world.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Chaotic/good and lawful/evil, sure.  Chaotically good and lawfully evil, no.



*Chaotically good?*
Gandhi's non-cooperation movement, the Boston Tea Party, Romeo and Juliet's vows.

*Lawfully Evil?*
China relocating 1.5 million people to build the Three-Gorges Dam, the "Degenerate Art" exhibition (Munich, 1937), Pharaoh ordering every male Hebrew children to be killed.


----------



## Ulthwithian (May 19, 2008)

Personally, I think they've been reading too much Order of the Stick (if someone can indeed do that)...

LG - Miko (note: No one ever said that LG is 'more good' than G)
G - Roy
Unaligned - V
E - Xykon
CE - Scribble

It's pretty cut-and-dry from that standpoint.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 19, 2008)

The Mirrorball Man said:
			
		

> *Chaotically good?*
> Gandhi's non-cooperation movement, the Boston Tea Party,



These are chaotic and good actions; there's nothing chaotic about the goodness, and the chaos prescribed wasn't even chaotic by the definition but ordered against tyranny.



> Romeo and Juliet's vows.



We can agree to disagree that R&J's vows had an inherently good quality.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> These are chaotic and good actions; there's nothing chaotic about the goodness, and the chaos prescribed wasn't even chaotic by the definition but ordered against tyranny.



It seems to me that you've come up with ad hoc definitions that fit your preexisting bias.



> We can agree to disagree that R&J's vows had an inherently good quality.



I never agree to disagree, but I can drop it if you want.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> What?  We're talking about actions.  You don't choose to commit to an action in line with your personal convictions because it's in balance with external authority, if you did you're some sort of all-knowing robot.  If ultimately you will choose actions more in line with your personal convictions than external ideals, you'd be "Good."




I'm not at all sure what you mean by this, however people with lawful beliefs regularly ignore personal confusion or doubt in favor of conforming to external code that they believe in.  This is the essense of having a 'lawful' mind set.  The opposite, overturning external codes when they are at odds with you current feelings is 'chaotic'.  The middle ground is weighing the two against each other as if each had some value.  Obviously, no mortal is going to be perfect at following thier own convictions, or perfect at adhering to some external code so every mortal is going to be somewhat 'nuetral' by the simple virtue of not having perfect violition or understanding.



> Now we get into the ignorance argument.  Your contention is that lawful evil societies are attempting to do good, and using evil methods to enforce the good.  If said society has no indication that they aren't right, how are they acting out of evil intent?




Not at all.  The society could easily believe that 'the ends justify the means' and that what it was doing was regrettable and far from the ideal, but was necessary to achieve its 'good' final aim.  And note by 'good' in this sense, I'm merely meaning 'desirable to the society'.  I don't mean to claim that every desired end is good.  In particular, the end goal could be very evil despite its percieved desirability.  



> Like eating meat, maybe the action turns out to have evil consequences.  But it isn't an evil action.  It's merely ignorance.




!!! 



> I think we have very different ideas of what an evil action is.  I believe that doing evil requires being conscious that you're doing evil.  Otherwise everything breaks down.




I'm inclined to agree that we have very different ideas of what an evil action is.  I don't believe that evil requires being conscious that you are doing evil, nor do I believe 'everything breaks down' if you accept that evil is evil whether you believe or understand it to be evil or not.  Knowingly doing evil indicates greater depravity, but doing evil and not knowing it for evil does not make it not evil.



> Lawfully good actions don't require allegiance to society, but rather to goodness in general.




That's a fair indication of I think the heart of the argument here.  I think you are biased toward thinking that lawful good is good.  That is, all your arguments seem to indicate that you think lawfulness is an unseparatable component of goodness.  Lawful good actions don't require allegiance to society (I never said that they did), but alleigence to goodness in general is merely 'good' - not lawful good.  Lawful good is allegiance to a shared and externally critiquable code which is designed to promote goodness.  It claims that lawfulness is an inseparable component of doing good, but from the perspective of a neutral good party, the lawful good person is comprimising on good values for the sake of achieving order and conformity. 



> But slavery is an evil practice.  Smart Lawful Good people would understand this and do everything in their power to change the laws.




I'm inclined to agree with you that slavery is an evil practice, but I'm also willing to concede a little of my own lack of perfect sagacity when I consider how recently the human race has come to this conclusion.  For most of human history, slavery was practiced as a part of normal human society virtually everywhere and I have no doubt that in a good many cases slaves were comfortable in thier position as slaves.  I also note that in much of human history, the slaves of great households could rise to positions of influence and power by virtue of thier attachment to thier masters.  

So I hardly think it should be obvious to anyone that slavery is evil regardless of your intelligence, nor do I agree that even a LG person made uncomfortable by the institution of slavery would do 'everything' in thier power to change the laws.  A LG person would do everything allowed by thier code to change the laws, or else if not would soon cease to be LG.  



> See, the definition of Chaotic as Champions-Freedom doesn't really help because any Good person should be opposed to Evil.




Assuming only you assume 'freedom' is a thing of enherent absolute goodness.  Our American society holds it as such for what I think are good and sufficient reasons, but it could simply be that we are 'chaotic good' and mistaking chaotic values as being inherent components of goodness.  



> A Lawful Good person shouldn't break down a door to stop horrible child abuse they know is happening, because they don't want to break someone else's property?




Do you advocate that policeman should break down doors without due process any time they suspect a crime may have been committed?  How much power should a lawful good magistrate have to follow up thier hunches?  Would such advocacy not eventually lead to a police state - something we tend to describe as 'lawful evil'?



> Of course they break down the door, even if it isn't "lawful."  So the pre-4E alignment could give no indication of the actions of the person, and is thus kind of worthless.




No they don't.  The 'cop who follows the system' conflicting with the good cop who breaks the rules when they conflict with his own perceptions of what is good ('Dirty' Harry, for example) are classic staples of American fiction.  Are you claiming that no such conflict over following the rules designed to promote liberty and goodness and breaking them to do immediate good exists? 



> The problem with slavery isn't that it's lawful, but that it's evil.




The problem with slavery is that the institution in practice so widely varies that it is difficult to make general claims about it.  In some practices, slaves are personal property.  In others they are state property and you merely have the usury of them.  In some practices the period of servitude is for life and you are a slave by caste or birth.  In other practices, the period of servitude is strictly limited.  In some practices, the slave has no more rights than an animal.  In other practices, slaves are strictly protected by the law and have various rights and at least in theory methods of redressing wrongs.  In some practices, slaves are second class citizens or not citizens at all.  In others, slaves are merely second class family members.  In some cases, slavery is considered an honorable estate and slaves can acquire property and power.  In others, slaves don't even own thier own bodies.  In most cases, the reality is far more complex than either extreme.  In some practices, slaves are disposable labor.  In other practices, slavery is a form of public welfare system designed to protect the poor from deprivation.

I'm glad we are rid of it, but I'm not at all convinced I understand the institution.


----------



## rhm001 (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> (*Referring to nonviolent resistance and the Boston Tea Party*) These are chaotic and good actions; there's nothing chaotic about the goodness, and the chaos prescribed wasn't even chaotic by the definition but ordered against tyranny.




I'm particularly interested in your view of the Boston Tea Party. Are you maintaining that it was Lawful because there was a plan? It was a small group of people who agreed to destroy some tea to protest the tax. It wasn't a large community agreement, and there wasn't a law that said it was acceptable (and the Declaration of Independence sights the right of citizens to throw out a government, NOT a boatload of tea). How can you say it was Lawful, other than being planned?

If any plan makes an act Lawful, what act, good OR evil, is Chaotic? Raids require some level of planning ("O.K. everybody, we're leaving on the 12th. Bring your weapons, two days food, and be ready for some pillagin'! Woo!"). Murders usually involve some level of planning. Charles Manson's actions were crazy, but certainly ordered, in that he and his followers planned the murders and had a clear goal of somehow initiating some sort of race revolution. There are certainly "heat of passion" crimes, but the whole point of the definition is that those are isolated incidents, which, everyone keeps saying, don't define a person. So, again, how, in your opinion, does a truly Chaotic person or group really behave?


----------



## Mercule (May 19, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> I am glad chaotic vanished from players choice... it was always an excuse to play as a jerk...



Odd.  The jerks I've played with tended to take lawful.  That way, they could boss you around in character.


----------



## Dausuul (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> As an aside: I always thought that the idea behind Law and Chaos "warring" against each other was ridiculous.  What motivation would there be?  Ordered minds understand that Law can't exist without Chaos, and the essence of Chaos is mindless irrational action--it shouldn't care.  Even templars of Law and Chaos only work if you give Law and Chaos some moral-based reason to oppose each other, and then you dip into Good vs. Evil.
> Lawful Good and Lawful Evil ganging up against Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil.




I don't know, I think the Law/Chaos war can actually work reasonably well.  It would go something like this:

Lawful Good regards Chaotic Good as well-meaning but misguided.  Law is necessary for the greater good.  Chaotic Good people should be reformed if possible.  If they can't be reformed, they should be treated leniently, since their intentions are good; but they can't be allowed to tear down the social structures that protect everyone.  Killing them is a last resort, but if it must be done, it must be done.

Lawful Good regards Lawful Evil as distasteful, but sometimes a necessary ally.  Lawful Evil types may be cruel, selfish bastards, but they understand the need for rules and order.  And although Lawful Good hates to admit it, there are times when the iron fist is what's needed; a competent tyrant is better than anarchy.

Chaotic Good regards Lawful Good as hopelessly naive.  In Chaotic Good's view, the desire to impose a rigid social order is the source of far greater evil than any petty bandit or cat burglar.  Only in small, independent communities can people live in peace and freedom; large nation-states inevitably breed tyranny, and social order is just a tool for the few to oppress the many.  Just as with Lawful Good, Chaotic Good would prefer to bring Lawful Good people around to its own point of view, and is reluctant to harm them; but if they will defend the corrupt order, the revolution cannot wait upon their enlightenment.

Chaotic Good regards Chaotic Evil as tragic, but understandable.  To Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil people are just responding to the brutality of the society in which they live.  While Chaotic Good will not help such maniacs commit their atrocities, it also is reluctant to interfere with them, taking the attitude that "You reap what you sow."

Lawful Evil regards Lawful Good as naive and idealistic, but useful.  As far as Lawful Evil is concerned, social order is the only logical way to run things, and the goal of any sensible person is to claw one's way to the top of said order--or at least as high as one can reasonably hope to get.  Lawful Good people are silly for not wanting to climb higher, but their dedication to supporting the social order is very handy.

Lawful Evil regards Chaotic Evil as crazy and dangerous.  While it's rational to be out for yourself, it's not rational to be a destructive criminal.  More to the point, such criminals threaten to undermine Lawful Evil's own position.  Lawful Evil likes stability and predictability, and fears disruption.

Chaotic Evil regards Chaotic Good as handy to have around.  Since Chaotic Evil thrives in anarchy and social breakdown, anyone who helps create confusion is useful.  That doesn't mean Chaotic Evil won't stab Chaotic Good in the back, but it's more likely to want a good reason before doing so.

Chaotic Evil regards Lawful Evil as a threat to its own free will.  While it doesn't give a damn about the poor oppressed peasants, it takes exception to anyone trying to push _it_ around.  Chaotic Evil doesn't want to lock itself into the stifling rules of society, it wants to take what it wants and have it right effin' now, and Lawful Evil types interfere with that.

Obviously, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil utterly detest each other, as do Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

rhm001 said:
			
		

> I'm particularly interested in your view of the Boston Tea Party...




The Boston Tea Party is particularly apt because, among other things...

a) The participants apparantly knew that the act that they were participating in was 'chaotic' as evidenced by the fact that they dressed as (to thier mind) barbarians when they did it.  They recognized the act as something that normal members of the society would not in fact do.
b) There was no existing ethical code at the time which would have endorsed vandalism in response to a burdensome tax.  Consider that it wasn't even the property of the King who they were protesting against that was destroyed.  There was nothing just or proportional in the retaliation by any normal legal or ethical standard.
c) The ethical standard by which the participants justified thier act, that a tax is not moral if it is imposed without the (presumably majority) consent of the persons being taxed ('No taxation without representation!'), was not only a wholy novel idea, but one an inherently 'chaotic' one is as much as it claims social or civic authority is subservient to the individual right to choose.
d) The British Empire against which the colonist were revolting was so far from being an extremely unjust, unfair, unrepresentative, and tyrannical state that it could probably have been considered the most just, most fair, most representative, and least tyrannical empire that hithertoo the world had ever seen.  This is afterall the same empire which is by this time more or less jointly run by an elected Parliment, gaurantees basic rights to its citizens, and will shortly use its naval power to end maritime slave trafficing the world over.  And yet, for all the fact that its not an overly unjust society, the colonists are claiming absolute moral authority based solely on the fact that they don't have the liberty to govern themselves as they see fit.
e) The expressed goal of the act is not to increase American power or even personal ambition (no one stole the tea and resold it), but simply to secure liberties.


----------



## Mercule (May 19, 2008)

Pretty good summary, Dausuul.  I might disagree with a couple of the specific adjectives, but not by much.  It would have been nice to have some book in the previous 34 years of D&D actually provide that much detail (slight though it may be) to the alignments.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 19, 2008)

The Mirrorball Man said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you've come up with ad hoc definitions that fit your preexisting bias.



I'm basing my argument on my definitions.  And the reason for the argument is that people are defining concepts differently than WotC has decided to define them.  Definitions are tricky things, are they not?



> I never agree to disagree, but I can drop it if you want.



All right...explain to me how a wedding vow is Good in and of itself.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm not at all sure what you mean by this, however people with lawful beliefs regularly ignore personal confusion or doubt in favor of conforming to external code that they believe in. This is the essense of having a 'lawful' mind set. The opposite, overturning external codes when they are at odds with you current feelings is 'chaotic'.



The definition of "Chaos" implies not reacting to codes at all, because they cannot apply.



> Not at all. The society could easily believe that 'the ends justify the means' and that what it was doing was regrettable and far from the ideal, but was necessary to achieve its 'good' final aim. And note by 'good' in this sense, I'm merely meaning 'desirable to the society'. I don't mean to claim that every desired end is good. In particular, the end goal could be very evil despite its percieved desirability.



All right.  An action is lawful And evil.  We're not talking about lawful/evil actions, but actions designed to achieve evil through law, as Lawful Good actions are designed to achieve good through law.  There are no such Lawful Evil actions, therefore they cannot exist on the same axis.



> I'm inclined to agree that we have very different ideas of what an evil action is. I don't believe that evil requires being conscious that you are doing evil, nor do I believe 'everything breaks down' if you accept that evil is evil whether you believe or understand it to be evil or not. Knowingly doing evil indicates greater depravity, but doing evil and not knowing it for evil does not make it not evil.



There can be evil results of good-intentioned actions.  I don't consider those actions to be evil, because otherwise there's no point in considering good and evil as being possible at all.
To clarify towards the central point, it isn't functional to base a system of alignment on actions that you have no one way of knowing are evil.  It doesn't help the character.



> That's a fair indication of I think the heart of the argument here. I think you are biased toward thinking that lawful good is good. That is, all your arguments seem to indicate that you think lawfulness is an unseparatable component of goodness.



You understand that I'm not saying that Lawful/Good and Lawful Good are the same thing right?  Lawful/Good equates to the past editions, Lawful Good to the current.  Not mutually exclusive systems, but one's better than another.
I'm saying there is a distinct difference, and no one else seems to see that.  Which is kinda cool, it means this argument means something.



> So I hardly think it should be obvious to anyone that slavery is evil regardless of your intelligence, nor do I agree that even a LG person made uncomfortable by the institution of slavery would do 'everything' in thier power to change the laws. A LG person would do everything allowed by thier code to change the laws, or else if not would soon cease to be LG.



Lawful/Good would be troubled by the indecision between whether to be Lawful or Good.  In 4E, if this was a serious issue, that person would probably be Unaligned because their focus isn't Good or Evil.



> Assuming only you assume 'freedom' is a thing of enherent absolute goodness. Our American society holds it as such for what I think are good and sufficient reasons, but it could simply be that we are 'chaotic good' and mistaking chaotic values as being inherent components of goodness.



What?  The point is that championing anything is to take a moral stance.



> Do you advocate that policeman should break down doors without due process any time they suspect a crime may have been committed? How much power should a lawful good magistrate have to follow up thier hunches? Would such advocacy not eventually lead to a police state - something we tend to describe as 'lawful evil'?



No...?  I don't get it...this still has nothing to do with chaotically good action or lawfully evil action. (Read: as differentiated between Chaotic/Good action and Lawful/Evil action.)



> No they don't. The 'cop who follows the system' conflicting with the good cop who breaks the rules when they conflict with his own perceptions of what is good ('Dirty' Harry, for example) are classic staples of American fiction. Are you claiming that no such conflict over following the rules designed to promote liberty and goodness and breaking them to do immediate good exists?



Never did claim so.  I'm claiming that the action to break down a door to save a child you think is in danger isn't chaotic.  This is because we still have different definitions of chaotic, mine having more to do with the current edition and the actual definition and yours having to do with an idealistic chaos.



> I'm glad we are rid of it, but I'm not at all convinced I understand the institution.



Slavery is evil, by the common connotations of the word.  It isn't indentured servitude, it isn't doing it for someone's own good, it is using someone else for your own good without their consent.

Personally I don't really believe in evil, because I'm a Spinozist.  Functionally, though, it describes what we see.



> I'm particularly interested in your view of the Boston Tea Party. Are you maintaining that it was Lawful because there was a plan? It was a small group of people who agreed to destroy some tea to protest the tax. It wasn't a large community agreement, and there wasn't a law that said it was acceptable (and the Declaration of Independence sights the right of citizens to throw out a government, NOT a boatload of tea). How can you say it was Lawful, other than being planned?



Lawful by the ideals of the people involved.  Unless their ideals didn't dictate their action, but some sort of intuitive sense of good.



> If any plan makes an act Lawful, what act, good OR evil, is Chaotic? Raids require some level of planning ("O.K. everybody, we're leaving on the 12th. Bring your weapons, two days food, and be ready for some pillagin'! Woo!"). Murders usually involve some level of planning. Charles Manson's actions were crazy, but certainly ordered, in that he and his followers planned the murders and had a clear goal of somehow initiating some sort of race revolution. There are certainly "heat of passion" crimes, but the whole point of the definition is that those are isolated incidents, which, everyone keeps saying, don't define a person. So, again, how, in your opinion, does a truly Chaotic person or group really behave?



Insane.  Or with actions based on illogical premises.
Rampant stupidity is a good cause of this, and probably why most people are Chaotic/_____.


----------



## Dausuul (May 19, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Pretty good summary, Dausuul.  I might disagree with a couple of the specific adjectives, but not by much.  It would have been nice to have some book in the previous 34 years of D&D actually provide that much detail (slight though it may be) to the alignments.




Well, bear in mind that that's just one way to look at things.  I was demonstrating that a campaign organized around the Law/Chaos conflict is a viable concept.  It does require a strong commitment to ideology for both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, in order to justify their opposition; such a campaign would probably get very philosophical.  The Good/Evil conflict is easier to work with for those who don't feel like making alignment a centerpiece of the campaign.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 19, 2008)

Dausuul:  Sure.  I still don't see a war ordained by the elemental concepts of Order and Chaos.  Lawful/Good vs. Lawful/Chaotic makes perfect sense though, because they're humanoid and have feelings about things that can cause actions that don't align with the concepts of Order and Chaos.
In other words, no person will ever be perfectly Lawful or Chaotic.


----------



## Mercule (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Dausuul:  Sure.  I still don't see a war ordained by the elemental concepts of Order and Chaos.  Lawful/Good vs. Lawful/Chaotic makes perfect sense though, because they're humanoid and have feelings about things that can cause actions that don't align with the concepts of Order and Chaos.
> In other words, no person will ever be perfectly Lawful or Chaotic.



No person is ever going to be perfectly Good or Evil, either.  I fail to see the relevance.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 19, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> No person is ever going to be perfectly Good or Evil, either.  I fail to see the relevance.



I can comprehend perfect good and perfect evil wanting to destroy each other much easier than perfect order and chaos.  That's probably because good and evil seem to be constructs.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

Dausuul: That's a very good treatment except for one thing - you don't give Lawful Evil enough credit.  Lawful Evil isn't merely well organized chaotic evil, and neither is self-centeredness the be all end all of evil.

Lawful Evil is what you get when you take Lawful Good and then state, "Life has relatively little value.  The life or suffering of an individual is of little concern compared to the success of the state.  Power is everything.  Success is the sole measure of the worth of society."

People in a lawful evil society legitimately feel that the state is worth more than they are and are (like any lawful society) perfectly willing to sacrifice themselves for the state.  In fact, they are probably more willing to do so than evil a lawful good society, as lawful evil societies almost invariably end up having significant death cults where death is symbolicly or openly celebrated (for example, the SS in the Nazi's.  I could site more modern examples, but don't want to get political).  LE societies are almost always 'lovers of death'.  

The critical aspect of a lawful evil society is correctly knowing your place.  If your place is X in the heirarchy, then you are supposed to stay there.  If your place is really Y in the heirarchy, then you are expect to move yourself (up or down) into the place where you are supposed to be.  Of course, you can be wrong, and the assumption of the lawful evil society is that if you succeed, then you were right.  If you fail, then you were wrong.  And wrongness in knowing your place in the society is the most venial sin in a lawful evil ethic.  So, there in a LE society there is nothing wrong against plotting against your lord and replacing him, per se.   If you successfully do so and succeed in the role, your success justifies your decision and is proof that it was time for you to enter into the role.  On the other hand, anything less than success is proof that you were wrong, that you are guilty of betraying your rightful lord, that you are guilty of hubris, and must be punished punatively and without mercy in order to sustain the social order.  

And if the society really is LE, people wanting to change thier place in the society - especially through extra-legal channels and especially more than a single rank - are extremely rare.  Everyone isn't in fact climbing the ranks on everyone elses back.  Most of the time they are doing thier job and if very good at it being promoted to new responcibility.  Only very very rarely would someone be wrongly placed into the wrong caste and need to take extraordinary measures to correct the problem for the good of society.  Normally, the society is expected to function by everyone in it and everyone's greatest ambition is to serve in the role that they were assigned - even if it is as grease for the iron wheels of the tyranny that they serve.


----------



## Dausuul (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Dausuul:  Sure.  I still don't see a war ordained by the elemental concepts of Order and Chaos.  Lawful/Good vs. Lawful/Chaotic makes perfect sense though, because they're humanoid and have feelings about things that can cause actions that don't align with the concepts of Order and Chaos.
> In other words, no person will ever be perfectly Lawful or Chaotic.




Nobody in his/her right mind would want absolute stasis or total chaos.  But that doesn't mean a war between "elemental" powers of Order and Chaos couldn't take the form I described, when humans get involved.  The Lawful side is fighting not for the absolute victory of Order, but to put an end to what they see as an onslaught of Chaos leading to the breakdown of society.  The Chaotic side is fighting not for a total collapse into Chaos, but to break what they see as the iron grip of Order enforcing a stifling tyranny.

Each side regards its own "elemental" principle as generally preferable; the Lawfuls want to see a world dominated by Order, with only enough Chaos to keep things from grinding to a complete halt, while the Chaotics want a world filled with Chaos, with only enough Order to keep things from utterly disintegrating.

Of course, while both sides probably recognize _in principle_ that it is not desirable for either Order or Chaos to achieve complete victory, in practice they may become blinded to the dangers of overreaching... to the point that Lawful characters may keep trying to strengthen Order, or Chaotic characters may keep sowing Chaos, even to the end.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 19, 2008)

Agreed.  Sounds like a good campaign.
I just think it's silly to assume that Order and Chaos *want* their followers to engage in war.  They wouldn't, even if they had wants.
In the same vein, I think real embodiments of law and chaos in the form of elementals is implausible.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 19, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> It's not that Robin Hood went against Prince John, it's how he did it.
> 
> Going against a usurper may not immidiately ring the CHAOTIC lights, but banditry?  Are you honestly going to tell me banditry is not a chaotic action?




It's only banditry because the Usurper says so.  Once you win, it becomes heroic resistance and you get medals for it.  And no one would dare call you a bandit.  

Robin Hood in most legend was fighting for the rightful ruler against the usurper.  If he was truly chaotic, he would have kept 'stealing from the rich to give to the poor' after Richard resumed his rule.  Otherwise, why not?  The poor are still poor, the rich are still rich.  But of course he knows these actions would have been undefendable under a legitimate government.  He isn't nearly chaotic.  He wasn't doing the bandit schtick by choice and he did so by maintaining as many of the knightly code as he could.



> Also, fighting Nazis may not automatically equate to good, but I'm pretty sure defending your homeland, your neighbors, and your family, is




No, defending community and family is a normal human impulse.  Just about anyone able to overcome his/her fear of death would do it.  If you do overcome your fear of death in order to defend your own, does it make you good?  No, it makes you courageous.

After the war ended, some resistance fighter and soldiers who fought the nazis then commited various crimes during the course of normal society, including fairly evil ones such as abusing their spouse and rape.  Indeed their lawyers sometime invoked their past service as attenuating circumstance.  

How is that possible?  Easy : Being courageous and being morally good are two different thing.  Hopefully you can be both but they aren't connected.  And I got to say it's very naive to believe otherwise.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> The definition of "Chaos" implies not reacting to codes at all, because they cannot apply.




Purely a symmantic difference.  Whether or not the chaotic actor is ignoring the external code or consciously defying it, the effect is the same.  The point is the chaotic actor does not believe his actions should be dictated by an external code, but only by internal and personal constructs (or some sort).



> All right.  An action is lawful And evil.  We're not talking about lawful/evil actions, but actions designed to achieve evil through law, as Lawful Good actions are designed to achieve good through law.  There are no such Lawful Evil actions, therefore they cannot exist on the same axis.




I think if you drop the assumption that an action is defined by its intention, this will clear itself up pretty quickly.  

You are onto something in as much as people actively trying to achieve evil are rare, so rare as that we probably have never seen a whole society with the goal of evil, but I think this is more problimatic for Nuetral Evil than Lawful Evil.  It is sufficient for lawful evil that you are trying to achieve law through evil.  It is not necessary that you be trying to achieve evil through law.  So it maybe that for mortals, the whole bottom quarter of the graph centered on NE is almost inaccessible because nihilism has such low appeal in living organism, but that doesn't imply that lawful evil can't exist.   Again, it is sufficient for lawful good to be trying to achieve law through good.  It is not necessary that it be trying to achieve good through law.



> There can be evil results of good-intentioned actions.  I don't consider those actions to be evil, because otherwise there's no point in considering good and evil as being possible at all.




Yes, there is.  Plenty of perfectly rational and rigorous philosophies exist out there that do not consider intentionality to be particularly important in determining whether something was good or evil.  They might consider it a mitigating factor when dispensing justice, but the act itself was good or evil based on something other than its intention.

Once again, I can't help but think your confusion is that you have a very specific moral philosophy and you refuse to classify it except as 'Good' and refuse to examine your bias or to consider other philosophies relative to your own.  If for example, you were lawful neutral, it would be natural to claim that chaos is just insanity or doesn't exist and that good and evil where constructs.  You might even be right, but in being right you wouldn't hold the philosophy described as 'Good' by D&D. 



> You understand that I'm not saying that Lawful/Good and Lawful Good are the same thing right?  Lawful/Good equates to the past editions, Lawful Good to the current.  Not mutually exclusive systems, but one's better than another.




I understand that you are really splitting hairs here.



> I'm saying there is a distinct difference, and no one else seems to see that.  Which is kinda cool, it means this argument means something.




I think your distinct difference just don't amount to much to anyone but yourself.



> Lawful/Good would be troubled by the indecision between whether to be Lawful or Good.  In 4E, if this was a serious issue, that person would probably be Unaligned because their focus isn't Good or Evil.




Of course lawful good would be troubled by the indecision between whether to act lawfully or goodly.  All the mixed alignments hold two different goals in tension with another.  A chaotic evil person can be troubled with indecision because the 'good' path seems to lead to short term personal gains.  He might be tempted to do 'good' because it seems easy at the moment.  And so on and so forth.  

Isn't the internal struggle and debate between doing what is lawful and doing what seems right the core of what makes lawful good characters so interesting?  Isn't that how we see it play out in the better and more interesting characterizations of lawful good characters?  The tension and indecision is a consequence of imperfect wisdom (or at least that's how LG people understand it), not a consequence of not having allegiance to law and good.  Quite the contrary, without an allegiance to law and good such indecision, confusion, and tension wouldn't exist.  Unaligned people generally don't have internal moral turmoil.



> What?  The point is that championing anything is to take a moral stance.




What?  Did I say it didn't?



> No...?  I don't get it...this still has nothing to do with chaotically good action or lawfully evil action. (Read: as differentiated between Chaotic/Good action and Lawful/Evil action.)




You are really stretching now.



> Never did claim so.  I'm claiming that the action to break down a door to save a child you think is in danger isn't chaotic.  This is because we still have different definitions of chaotic, mine having more to do with the current edition and the actual definition and yours having to do with an idealistic chaos.




Err... you still seem like you are stretching to me.  



> Slavery is evil, by the common connotations of the word.




Common sense isn't proof of anything.



> It isn't indentured servitude, it isn't doing it for someone's own good, it is using someone else for your own good without their consent.




That's not the definition of slavery, and more importantly that's certainly not how societies that practiced slavery understood the term.  



> Personally I don't really believe in evil, because I'm a Spinozist.




Swell.


----------



## DarkKestral (May 19, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Dausuul:  Sure.  I still don't see a war ordained by the elemental concepts of Order and Chaos.  Lawful/Good vs. Lawful/Chaotic makes perfect sense though, because they're humanoid and have feelings about things that can cause actions that don't align with the concepts of Order and Chaos.
> In other words, no person will ever be perfectly Lawful or Chaotic.




Certainly, no individual may be utterly Lawful or Chaotic, but when you have deities that directly interact and speak with individuals and thus have a say in a society's actions, it can be perfectly reasonable to have a war between LN and CN gods, because the gods CAN be pure expressions of an ideal.

For an example, Moorcock basically has the lords of Order vs. the lords of Chaos. Order has rules for everything, but their real goal is to create a never-changing reality where the past is the same as the present which is the same as the future. Their home and ideal is a an utterly featureless plane that extends forever. On the other hand, Chaos is ever-changing. None of the lords of Chaos ever stay the same from moment to moment, and so does their home, a place where the laws of reality literally don't exist. Things come in and out of existence all the time and the one rule is that anything is possible.

These gods, unlike mortals, are totally without mercy. They can be good or evil depending on situation, but ultimately they are neither in and of themselves, and basically represent primordial visions of the two concepts, "unsullied" by other ideals. They may want individuals to commit acts which are evil, but they themselves don't perceive these acts as having any moral or ethical consequences beyond protecting Order or Chaos, because they are utterly apathetic to the desires of mortals. On the other hand, devils and demons have historically paid quite a bit of attention to mortal desires; their role in D&D has always been to tempt individuals into expressing their darker desires at the expense of their fellow man. This introduces a significant difference that helps clarify the "N" section of spectrum... Moorcock's gods will do whatever it takes to promote their cause, be it a good or evil act, while D&Ds fiends and evil deities are supposed to find it hard to do good acts unless they can hide a greater evil within. Moorcock's gods are in one sense extreme examples of the LN and CN alignments, then.

Their mortal followers tend to be either good or evil, but it's made clear that slavish devotion to one of the two sets of principles/deities without concern for your fellow man is going to end up with the follower doing very evil stuff, and that in general, while a given individual may prefer the actions of one side or another, the balance must be struck somewhere in the middle. Balance isn't the be-all and end-all, however, as a society may function well even if it is tipped somewhat to one side or another philosophically as long as it does not get too aligned.


----------



## Praesul (May 19, 2008)

I'm not sure if this has already been said, as I didn't have time to read the entire thread but here's my take.

Don't think of the new alignment system as a spectrum of only good and evil.  This new system isn't implying that Lawful Good is "more good" than simply Good.  What it does imply though is that LG is more _restrictive_ than Good.  A LG player has a certain code they must follow, while a Good character has a lot more personal freedom, like Neutral Good and Chaotic Good used to.  The developers just decided there wasn't enough of a distinction between NG and CG.

On the other side, Evil and Chaotic Evil are much the same.  Evil people are more the selfish folks we remember from NE and LE.  Like LG, CE characters have certain decisions pre-made for them since they are chaotic and evil.  They won't have that code of ethics the LG guy does, but they will have a certain predisposition against civilization that a plain old Evil guy might not have.

In the end, I think the new system really does a great job of reducing ambiguity in the alignment system and helps to prevent those arguments so many people have eluded to.  Also, I think it works to give back some of the story telling power to the player.  Freeing up the choices of Evil and Good characters will really allow for a less restrictive playstyle.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 19, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> It's only banditry because the Usurper says so.  Once you win, it becomes heroic resistance and you get medals for it.  And no one would dare call you a bandit.




It's _still chaotic_.  Or are you now going to tell me that running around, mugging people, is somehow inerently lawful?  



> Robin Hood in most legend was fighting for the rightful ruler against the usurper.  If he was truly chaotic, he would have kept 'stealing from the rich to give to the poor' after Richard resumed his rule.  Otherwise, why not?  The poor are still poor, the rich are still rich.  But of course he knows these actions would have been undefendable under a legitimate government.  He isn't nearly chaotic.  He wasn't doing the bandit schtick by choice and he did so by maintaining as many of the knightly code as he could.




You're confusing chaotic/lawful with good/evil.  Robin Hood used a chaotic means to fight - I don't care what the justification was.  If he stopped the banditry afterwards, then his alignment changes, although at times I think I'm the only person who realizes this is possible.



> No, defending community and family is a normal human impulse.  Just about anyone able to overcome his/her fear of death would do it.  If you do overcome your fear of death in order to defend your own, does it make you good?  No, it makes you courageous.




So wait, good is defending people unless you know their names?



> After the war ended, some resistance fighter and soldiers who fought the nazis then commited various crimes during the course of normal society, including fairly evil ones such as abusing their spouse and rape.  Indeed their lawyers sometime invoked their past service as attenuating circumstance.




Then wouldn't this constitute as a PERFECT example of the three chaotic alignments teaming up momentarily?  Some where chaotic good - fighting to defend others.  Some were chaotic evil - fighting to remove the law.  One is good, one is evil, but both team up because they both hate the very lawful evil nazis.



> How is that possible?  Easy : Being courageous and being morally good are two different thing.  Hopefully you can be both but they aren't connected.  And I got to say it's very naive to believe otherwise.




No, but it's very aggrivating to see "good is helping people.  Unless you know them.  Then it's not good.  And chaos is when you do something bad."


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Then wouldn't this constitute as a PERFECT example of the three chaotic alignments teaming up momentarily?  Some where chaotic good - fighting to defend others.  Some were chaotic evil - fighting to remove the law.




Slight ammendment, "Some were chaotic neutral - fighting to remove the law.  Some were chaotic evil, fighting only because they gained respect in doing so,could line thier pockets or otherwise enjoy rewards, and because they simply enjoyed killing people."

One could imagine Belkar, that shoeless god of war thinking, "I wanna kill people, but the Nazi's are too in to displine and are are going to lose anyway.  So this way I get to kill people ruthlessly, and people will reward me with money, sex, respect, and property and treat me as a hero for doing so.  Stupid do gooders."

Realistically, even if Robin Hood was a hero, you got to figure at least some of his merry men were just plain old bandits.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> To be perfectly frank, if I had to vote for the worst rules system ever published, it would be RIFTS.




I agree with you.  Which is why I specified the RIFTS alignment system rather than their entire rules system.


----------



## Krensky (May 19, 2008)

From a historical perspective, the use of Richard I and John I, in discussing Lawful Good is humorous, since objectively the historical John was either Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral and Richard was probably Chaotic Neutral if not outright Chaotic Evil (This is a man who raped, burned and pillages his way across Sicily, Cyprus, and the Middle East and violated a surrender agreement the rest of the Crusaders honored, slaughtered thousands of hostages because it was more convenient then keeping them alive. King Richard was THE bogeyman in the Arab world after the Third Crusade, with mothers telling their children to behave or Richard would get them.) After the wheels fell of the Third Crusade his actions came home to roost when he had to flee Byzantium and got himself imprisoned by Leopold V of Austria. His mother Eleanor and his brother John were then forced to raise something like three times the GDP of the entire Kingdom of Britain at the time to bail him out. That's where the stifling taxes came from, not as is often portrayed, from John's greed.

As for alignment in 4e, if all mechanical uses of it have been removed (ie it's not a targeting qualified anymore) why the hell still include it in the PHB?


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 19, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> It's _still chaotic_.  Or are you now going to tell me that running around, mugging people, is somehow inerently lawful?




You are the one who is assuming these acts are inherently chaotic.  What Robin Hood did was war on a small scale.  Guerrila, basically.  Is war an inherently CHAOTIC activity?  Because fighting a guerilla war to restore the LAW is kind of paradoxal if only CHAOTIC people can do it.  Yourself you tagged the nazis as Lawful.  Well, they were waging war.  And used sneaky tactics such as blitzkrieg and snipers.  Why would Robin Hood be chaotic just because he didn't have the means to fight Prince John on an open field?

And more importantly, you never answered this : Why would Robin Hood *STOP* his activities and become a loyal subject once the rightful king is restored if he was truly chaotic.  



> You're confusing chaotic/lawful with good/evil.  Robin Hood used a chaotic means to fight - I don't care what the justification was.  If he stopped the banditry afterwards, then his alignment changes, although at times I think I'm the only person who realizes this is possible.




Robin Hood used the only means he had available.  In most variant, he didn't take to the wood immediately.  In most stories he starts by protesting formally.  Very Lawful.  But it backfires and soon he has to flee for his life.  He didn't use a _chaotic_ method to fight back.  He used the _only_ method to fight back in the context.  Nothing else would have worked in an area where the Sheriff conrols the local armed force, the church hierarchy is corrupt, there is no such things as media and public opinion and simply slaughtering any visible opposition is very much an option for the government.  

Are you telling me his alignment changed when he fled into the woods out of necessity and the reverted to LG or NG once Richard returned?  Because his ethics remained constant.  That's why he had to fight.  If his ethics were flexible, he'd have shut up and accepted John's rule. 



> So wait, good is defending people unless you know their names?




If you defend strangers because it's the right thing to do, you are GOOD.  If you defend your family, maybe you are GOOD.  Maybe you are unlaigned.  Maybe you are even evil.  You didn't know that most mafia hitmen were also family men?  Better not endanger their family.  Wanting to protect your kid sister makes you a normal brother, not a saint.

So yes, defending strangers is more altruistic than defending your kin.  I can't understand why you don't grasp that fact.  



> Then wouldn't this constitute as a PERFECT example of the three chaotic alignments teaming up momentarily?  Some where chaotic good - fighting to defend others.  Some were chaotic evil - fighting to remove the law.  One is good, one is evil, but both team up because they both hate the very lawful evil nazis.




Put down that comic book NOW.

The guy who became a war hero during WW2 and then went home to his wife and beat the living crap out of her isn't a chaotic evil psychopath fighting to destroy order.  He's just a patriot, a macho and has poor emotional control.  My argument wasn't that such a man was CE, just that he wasn't GOOD.  It was in relation to the point above.



> No, but it's very aggrivating to see "good is helping people.  Unless you know them.  Then it's not good.  And chaos is when you do something bad."




To reiterate, defending your family isn't GOOD, it's expected.  You might still be a GOOD person, it's just not on that one action we'll know because notoriously EVIL people have helped and protected their family too.  It's pretty much a biological imperative and if you don't even do that, then I guess you really are decadent CE.

And I don't think I wrote 'Chaos is doing something bad' anywhere.


----------



## Family (May 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Realistically, even if Robin Hood was a hero, you got to figure at least some of his merry men were just plain old bandits.




Hell, I'll kill a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there's a woman, or if I'm gettin' paid - mostly only when I'm gettin' paid.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 19, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> To reiterate, defending your family isn't GOOD, it's expected.  You might still be a GOOD person, it's just not on that one action we'll know because notoriously EVIL people have helped and protected their family too.




To put it a little differently, protecting one's family might be a Good _act_, but it is not that one act alone that makes them a Good person.

For me, the fuzzier the better.  As long as it doesn't break down the mechanical system, I'll be ignoring alignment entirely.


----------



## Krensky (May 19, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> Hell, I'll kill a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there's a woman, or if I'm gettin' paid - mostly only when I'm gettin' paid.




I think Jayne's a great example of CN that isn't bug nuts.


----------



## Krensky (May 19, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> So yes, defending strangers is more altruistic than defending your kin.  I can't understand why you don't grasp that fact.




Well, there is a certain potential for that to be culture related. Some belief systems (particularly certain versions of Confucianism) would hold that defending your sister is of higher importance and moral value then defending a stranger.


----------



## CrimsonNeko (May 19, 2008)

So, once again I am a little sorry I don't have time to read the whole 12 pages.  I am sad because of one big issue concerning this.  This is another clear indicator that they are killing the things I liked about the planescape stuff.  One of my favorite things in planescape was the difference between devils and demons...

What was the difference, you might ask if you didn't play 2nd ed planescape?  (Sorry if I get this mixed up, it's been a while)Both factions believed in the furthering of evil.  What caused the split between them, and consequently the Blood War, was a disagree on how best to do that.  Demons believed that the best way to further evil would be to encourage total anarchy, let things fall apart, and watch the planes decend into war and chaos.  Devils, on the hand, believed in subverting society, letting people sell their souls for temporary gain, knowing that such a sale would be the first step to damnation.

Ideas like that were a big part of Planescape.  Good and evil weren't as important as law and chaos.  Than again, that made sense, since planescape was a setting where the personal will of the individual could be a big factor, and belief could shape reality (I miss the factions.....)


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

Krensky said:
			
		

> Well, there is a certain potential for that to be culture related. Some belief systems (particularly certain versions of Confucianism) would hold that defending your sister is of higher importance and moral value then defending a stranger.




There are other extant belief systems out there which would hold that defending a stranger is in fact evil and that defending someone is only virtuous if it is your kith or kin.  To defend a stranger is to risk the assets of the clan for something that doesn't advance the interests of the clan - and indeed advances the interest of someone who is inherently an enemy of the clan since all strangers are enemies by default.  Hense, under these cultures 'helping others' is not good.  Only helping those people defined as 'brothers' by your common relationship to them is good.

Of course, I would argue that these cultures are themselves 'not Good' and so of course they define good as non-good and evil as good.

As Good (capital g) is commonly understood in the West, the less benefit you derive from helping someone, the more Good it is.  I'm taking that generally to be the philosophical grouping meant by 'Good' in D&D based on how the term was described in prior editions.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 19, 2008)

Krensky said:
			
		

> Well, there is a certain potential for that to be culture related. Some belief systems (particularly certain versions of Confucianism) would hold that defending your sister is of higher importance and moral value then defending a stranger.




I would say that defending your sister is of a higher _priority_ than defending a stranger.
If it's one or the other, I can't imagine that I'd chose a stranger over my sisters.

I am not aware that even confucianism would put a higher _value_ on defending your sister than a stranger, since the first is so much more common than the later.  If both action are deemed worthy but one is less common than the others, the rarest action is of higher value than the most common.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> I am not aware that even confucianism would put a higher _value_ on defending your sister than a stranger, since the first is so much more common than the later.  If both action are deemed worthy but one is less common than the others, the rarest action is of higher value than the most common.




I'm hardly an expert here, but I know enough of Confucianism to believe that that last statement is not true under its ethical formulation.

Those actions are deemed most worthy that are the most expected (common) according to your station and relationships.  Hense, also, by failing in these duties you are most unworthy.  Under Confucianism, the logic would run, "If it were true that it was more worthy to help strangers than ones sister, then it would also be true that it was more unworthy to not help strangers than ones sister.  Since this is not the case, it cannot be true that it is more worthy to help strangers than ones sisters."

I'm not actually clear to what extent if any Confucianism would esteem helping a stranger.  My guess is that it esteems benevolence to strangers as necessary for perfection, but generally to be of low value since by definition your relationship to a stranger - and therefore your duty to him - is one of non-relationship.


----------



## Krensky (May 19, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> I would say that defending your sister is of a higher _priority_ than defending a stranger.
> If it's one or the other, I can't imagine that I'd chose a stranger over my sisters.
> 
> I am not aware that even confucianism would put a higher _value_ on defending your sister than a stranger, since the first is so much more common than the later.  If both action are deemed worthy but one is less common than the others, the rarest action is of higher value than the most common.




I said some forms of it. Namely because the filial relationship between you and your sister is higher then the one between you and a friend or the non-existent one between you and a stranger. Master Kung may not have agreed, but this is how some have interpreted it.

That wasn't quite the point though, my point is that the determination of good and evil, even if one accepts that they are dualistic absolutes, is not necessarily something universal. The level of morality or immorality ascribed to a particular act by a culture can and will vary. Even if good and evil are absolute, the actual definitions of "good" and "evil" are cultural.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2008)

Krensky said:
			
		

> I said some forms of it. Namely because the filial relationship between you and your sister is higher then the one between you and a friend or the non-existent one between you and a stranger. Master Kung may not have agreed, but this is how some have interpreted it.




Master Kung did not claim there existed a relationship between you and a stranger or enemy.  He did however provide a guide to benevolent behavior:

"Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you."

But this formulation is expressively passive, as it asserts what behavior to avoid (murder, for example), but it doesn't exhort you to take any sort of particular action.  So, you might avoid cruelty, but there is no particular impetus toward charity unless you have a duty to the individual because of a relationship - in which case it is not charity.

Of course, I'm not a scholar and haven't been instructed in the texts, but the critical point it would seem to me is how much value that Master Kung placed on forming friendships.  If you are under no obligation to create the friend relationship, you are also under no obligation to practice kindness to strangers.  It still might be advisable, but it would be a matter of rational self-interest at that point, and not a moral necessity.

I leave the answer to that to an actual expert.


----------



## Krensky (May 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Master Kung did not claim there existed a relationship between you and a stranger or enemy.  He did however provide a guide to benevolent behavior:
> 
> "Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you."
> 
> ...




I think we're arguing the same thing here. The root of my comments remains:

If the mechanical influence of alignment (targeting, penalties for not adhering to it, or rewards for adhering to it) has been removed, why include alignment at all? In a modern game something closer to True20's (among other systems, many of which came first, True20 is just one that popped in my head) virtues and vices or WoD's humanity scales or Oriental Adventures/L5R's honor system is more appropriate if some sort of scale for moral and ethical predilection is required. I honestly think alignment in 4e is another sacred cow the designers felt they couldn't kill.

If (when) I run a 4e game I probably won't use alignment if it indeed has no mechanical effect in the RAW. Even if it does most things, including people and monsters simply won't have any. Alignment is a property of outsiders and beings touched by a higher power and purpose. Clerics and Paladins generally don't count as being touched in this way, I mean things that a other worldly power that possesses alignment has invested some of that power directly in. This has worked for 3.X and Spycraft 2.0 games, I don't foresee any issues in 4e.


----------



## Family (May 19, 2008)

---


----------



## 2eBladeSinger (May 19, 2008)

I just jumped from the third page to the last... I was wondering when the thread would devolve into a philisophical debate *casually whistles and steps out of the room*

Probably the only time in my life I'm ever going to say this: I like the way Palladium does the mechanic much better.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Purely a symmantic difference.  Whether or not the chaotic actor is ignoring the external code or consciously defying it, the effect is the same.  The point is the chaotic actor does not believe his actions should be dictated by an external code, but only by internal and personal constructs (or some sort).



Of course it's semantic.  But obviously it's necessary to absorb.
You believe that being Chaotic is to be devoted to the idea of Chaos.  I believe that the way WotC is defining it is as Actually Chaotic.


> I think if you drop the assumption that an action is defined by its intention, this will clear itself up pretty quickly.



No reason to drop an assumption that makes every bit of sense.


> It is sufficient for lawful evil that you are trying to achieve law through evil.  It is not necessary that you be trying to achieve evil through law.



You are talking about something other than what I am talking about.  You are talking about a Lawful *and* Evil person.  Not a Lawfully Evil person.
I agree that Lawful/Evil can exist (Lawful Evil in the old system).  Yes.  Great.  That's true.  But the new system doesn't define it the same way.


> Yes, there is.  Plenty of perfectly rational and rigorous philosophies exist out there that do not consider intentionality to be particularly important in determining whether something was good or evil.  They might consider it a mitigating factor when dispensing justice, but the act itself was good or evil based on something other than its intention.



All right.  These philosophies have a definition of evil action that is Completely Irrelevant because it means that you cannot know when you are and are not doing good and evil actions.  And if that is true, then no one would know how to act.


> Once again, I can't help but think your confusion is that you have a very specific moral philosophy and you refuse to classify it except as 'Good' and refuse to examine your bias or to consider other philosophies relative to your own.



I don't.  I'm perfectly willing to accept that your idea of Lawful/Good, Lawful/Evil, Chaotic/Good, all that old stuff exist.  I put a '/' in there to more accurately label it, but it is exactly what 3.x alignments were.  I am differentiating between the two editions.  This second one focuses on Good and Evil, and scraps the Lawful and Chaotic "axis."  I think it works better.


> I understand that you are really splitting hairs here.



You aren't even arguing against me, you're just reinforcing the reasoning behind the previous system.  Which is great.  But it isn't the current system.  You should probably be arguing that the new system sucks, rather than that the new system should be the old system without qualification.


> I think your distinct difference just don't amount to much to anyone but yourself.



That's fine.  Hopefully one or two people do, and start to actually think about how the difference matters.


> Quite the contrary, without an allegiance to law and good such indecision, confusion, and tension wouldn't exist.  Unaligned people generally don't have internal moral turmoil.



Um.  Right.  Unaligned people including everyone who isn't at heart devoted to Good or Evil.  I'm sure they have no compunctions about their actions.


> Err... you still seem like you are stretching to me.



That's fine...it's a hard concept to grasp.


> Common sense isn't proof of anything.



Common connotations define the usage and meaning of words.


> That's not the definition of slavery, and more importantly that's certainly not how societies that practiced slavery understood the term.



Definition:
"Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons — known as slaves — are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work.
Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labor. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labor."

More importantly:
This still has nothing to do with the distinct difference between the old and new definitions of Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil.



> Swell.



Rough day?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 20, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> You are the one who is assuming these acts are inherently chaotic.  What Robin Hood did was war on a small scale.  Guerrila, basically.  Is war an inherently CHAOTIC activity?  Because fighting a guerilla war to restore the LAW is kind of paradoxal if only CHAOTIC people can do it.  Yourself you tagged the nazis as Lawful.  Well, they were waging war.  And used sneaky tactics such as blitzkrieg and snipers.  Why would Robin Hood be chaotic just because he didn't have the means to fight Prince John on an open field?




_It's still banditry_.  He didn't do guerilla warfare.  He didn't do strategic attacks on the Prince's army.  He hid in the woods and mugged people.



> And more importantly, you never answered this : Why would Robin Hood *STOP* his activities and become a loyal subject once the rightful king is restored if he was truly chaotic.




His alignment changed.



> Robin Hood used the only means he had available.  In most variant, he didn't take to the wood immediately.  In most stories he starts by protesting formally.  Very Lawful.  But it backfires and soon he has to flee for his life.  He didn't use a _chaotic_ method to fight back.  He used the _only_ method to fight back in the context.  Nothing else would have worked in an area where the Sheriff conrols the local armed force, the church hierarchy is corrupt, there is no such things as media and public opinion and simply slaughtering any visible opposition is very much an option for the government.
> 
> Are you telling me his alignment changed when he fled into the woods out of necessity and the reverted to LG or NG once Richard returned?  Because his ethics remained constant.  That's why he had to fight.  If his ethics were flexible, he'd have shut up and accepted John's rule.




I'm saying that, due to his actions - mugging rich people and giving money to others - he was chaotic good.  Again, he wasn't some lone warrior bravely fighting against all odds.  He hid in the woods and mugged people.



> If you defend strangers because it's the right thing to do, you are GOOD.  If you defend your family, maybe you are GOOD.  Maybe you are unlaigned.  Maybe you are even evil.  You didn't know that most mafia hitmen were also family men?  Better not endanger their family.  Wanting to protect your kid sister makes you a normal brother, not a saint.
> 
> So yes, defending strangers is more altruistic than defending your kin.  I can't understand why you don't grasp that fact.




You haven't answered my point.  Defending people is an activity that scores you "good" points.  I'm not saying "everyone who defends their family is good."  I'm saying the action itself is a good one.  You're saying "No, defending people is unaligned unless they're a stranger.  There's nothing good about risking your life for someone else."  Which is bizarre.  I don't care which is more altruistic, I'm saying they're both altruistic to begin with.



> Put down that comic book NOW.
> 
> The guy who became a war hero during WW2 and then went home to his wife and beat the living crap out of her isn't a chaotic evil psychopath fighting to destroy order.  He's just a patriot, a macho and has poor emotional control.  My argument wasn't that such a man was CE, just that he wasn't GOOD.  It was in relation to the point above.




I have no clue what you're trying to say here, or what it has to do with a comic book.  I said: "X people are chaotic good."  You said "They aren't all good."  I said "Ok, but that works even better - it's a show that chaotic people, irregardless of alignment, can team up."  Then you respond with "PUT DOWN THE COMIC BOOK, I just said he isn't good!"

Yes, I realize they weren't all good.  That has _nothing_ to do with my point.



> To reiterate, defending your family isn't GOOD, it's expected.  You might still be a GOOD person, it's just not on that one action we'll know because notoriously EVIL people have helped and protected their family too.  It's pretty much a biological imperative and if you don't even do that, then I guess you really are decadent CE.




Being a nice person is expected.  Most of modern society is created around "People shouldn't be douchebags."  Just because something is expected doesn't mean it's suddenly _not good_.  And yes, evil people do it.  So?  Evil people do good things all the time.  Good people do evil things all the time.  We're _mortals_.



> And I don't think I wrote 'Chaos is doing something bad' anywhere.




That's the overall gist from 4e.  The deeper you go into evil, the more chaotic you get.  The deeper you go into good, the more lawful you get.  And your general consensus has been "You can't be chaotic and good."



Out of curiosity, for those who say Chaotic Good doesn't exist, where does the American Revolution or the various acts done by the Sons of Liberty fit in?


----------



## Krensky (May 20, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, for those who say Chaotic Good doesn't exist, where does the American Revolution or the various acts done by the Sons of Liberty fit in?




I think it exists quite fine in the game, but trying to apply D&D's neat little nine cell matrix to reality doesn't go where you think it will.

The important people in founding our country, namely the framers of the Declaration of Independence and even more so the Constitution and Bill of Rights (Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin) were probably Lawful Good or Neutral. The entire premise of the Declaration was that the British rule was contrary to natural law. They spent an inordinate amount of time being reasonable and amazingly enough were in the process of getting what most colonists really wanted: To be subjects, not colonists. Then the crazy rabble rousers  (CG or CN) in Massachusetts went and started an armed revolt.

Faced with this the three framers and a number of other men of their ilk drew up the Declaration if Independence which served a number of purposes, one of which was a legal and philosophic fig leaf to pretty up the revolt and rationalize it. Following the end of the War of American Independence, they then went on and established a legalist society second only to the Chinese Empire.

As for the Sons on Liberty, from any objective modern perspective, they were by an large terrorists. Similarly Ethan Allen was an insurgent, although again, probably Lawful as his actions related to New York not recognizing the property rights when the Crown decided what we now call Vermont was part of New York and not New Hampshire.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 20, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> _It's still banditry_.  He didn't do guerilla warfare.  He didn't do strategic attacks on the Prince's army.  He hid in the woods and mugged people.




In many of the harsher tales he outright assassinates key officials, including the Jolly 'Adventures of Robin Hood' with Erol Flynn (the gloss over that part but there is a montage that implies Robin Hood outright sniped a dozen officials).  In most tales he attacks the sheriff officials and steals the taxes which the prince kind of need to maintain his army.  These two type of actions are typical guerrilla.  

In most tales he performs what amount to propaganda against John's regime.  In all tales except those that didn't feature John at all (The eraliest ones), he hinders John's plan at every opportunity and helps Richard allies.

There is few version of the tale where he is simply a happy go lucky bandit that steals from the rich to give to the poor.  In some of the earliest tale, there's no stealing from the poor, it's all about his war against the sheriff.




> His alignment changed.




That would make alignment meaningless.

You suggest he starts LG as a faithful servant of the king, he turns CG to oppose prince John and revert ot LG when the rightful king is restored?   

Robin very much has the same internal compass before, during and after his outlaws days.  It's not his morals that changed at these three junction in his life, it's the environment.



> You haven't answered my point.  Defending people is an activity that scores you "good" points.  I'm not saying "everyone who defends their family is good."  I'm saying the action itself is a good one.  You're saying "No, defending people is unaligned unless they're a stranger.  There's nothing good about risking your life for someone else."  Which is bizarre.  I don't care which is more altruistic, I'm saying they're both altruistic to begin with.




''Good points''?  This isn't a CRPG like NWN.  And I don't care to comment about actions.  I always commented about people.  So I say a man won't help his sister because he is a GOOD man, he'll do so because he loves her.  It's that simple.  Does it make him good?  No.  Is he good?  Perhaps, but this behaviour is irrelevant to determining whether he's good or not and no amount of insisting that the act itself is good will matter one bit in determining his alignment if it turns out the guy is also a mafia hitman.



> I have no clue what you're trying to say here, or what it has to do with a comic book.




The idea that Chaotic Evil would rise to fight against the Lawful Evil Nazis as a matter of principle is what I meant.  Comic book morality.  Blood war silliness.  Not happening.

Millions of people fought in WW2 and yet I'd bet not a _single_ person answering the 3e definition of CE enlisted to fight the nazis on the basis that his conscience told him he needed to strike down the fascist order.  

Beside war profiteer, you want to know where you can find the most real life personalities that can be matched to the CE description?  Not against the nazis, WITH the nazis.  Some ot these SS were nothing short of madmen performing acts of wanton destruction that borders on caricature.




> Out of curiosity, for those who say Chaotic Good doesn't exist, where does the American Revolution or the various acts done by the Sons of Liberty fit in?




The result of the american revolution was the most thorough state of right (In other words, Lawful society) that the world had seen until that point in history.

Where do _you_ think they fit in the Chaos / Lawful spectrum?  

Forgetting about good and evil, I'd say most were neutral except the framers who were the definition of Lawful.  There would have been a handful of chaotic but these would turn out to be sorely disappointed with the result seeing as the United states became more orderly after than before the revolution.  They then proceeded to migrate west.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 20, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> All right.  These philosophies have a definition of evil action that is Completely Irrelevant because it means that you cannot know when you are and are not doing good and evil actions.  And if that is true, then no one would know how to act.



Immanuel Kant would be highly disappointed in your shortsightedness.  Considering it's a major school of philosophy dedicated to the idea that Good and Evil are objective and intention independent yet can be ascertained through rational thought I would say your philosophical horizon is rather narrow.  Even philosophers who disagree with Kant do not contend objective ethics structures create inability to define moral action.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 20, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> In many of the harsher tales he outright assassinates key officials, including the Jolly 'Adventures of Robin Hood' with Erol Flynn (the gloss over that part but there is a montage that implies Robin Hood outright sniped a dozen officials).  In most tales he attacks the sheriff officials and steals the taxes which the prince kind of need to maintain his army.  These two type of actions are typical guerrilla.




Alright, let's say it is guerrilla warfare.

But are you now going to say sniping out government officials is lawful?  



> There is few version of the tale where he is simply a happy go lucky bandit that steals from the rich to give to the poor.  In some of the earliest tale, there's no stealing from the poor, it's all about his war against the sheriff.




And in other versions, he's just a bandit who also attacks the prince, who makes no differentials between stealing from the rich _or_ the poor.  So for your version where he is a knight errant in the woods, there's a version where he is just a bandit.




> That would make alignment meaningless.




Why, because it changes?  Don't be rediculous.



> You suggest he starts LG as a faithful servant of the king, he turns CG to oppose prince John and revert ot LG when the rightful king is restored?




Who says he starts LG or ends LG?  It's very possible he starts and ends NG, not LG.



> Robin very much has the same internal compass before, during and after his outlaws days.  It's not his morals that changed at these three junction in his life, it's the environment.




People do actions contrary to their "moral compass" all the time, MOST often without realizing it.



> ''Good points''?  This isn't a CRPG like NWN.  And I don't care to comment about actions.  I always commented about people.  So I say a man won't help his sister because he is a GOOD man, he'll do so because he loves her.  It's that simple.  Does it make him good?  No.  Is he good?  Perhaps, but this behaviour is irrelevant to determining whether he's good or not and no amount of insisting that the act itself is good will matter one bit in determining his alignment if it turns out the guy is also a mafia hitman.




So what tracks alignment if it's not actions?  Your entire argument seems set up around "Evil people can NEVER DO GOOD THINGS, NEVER, NEIN, CANNOT HAPPEN."



> The idea that Chaotic Evil would rise to fight against the Lawful Evil Nazis as a matter of principle is what I meant.  Comic book morality.  Blood war silliness.  Not happening.




Why is it silliness?  _It happened in the real world_.



> Millions of people fought in WW2 and yet I'd bet not a _single_ person answering the 3e definition of CE enlisted to fight the nazis on the basis that his conscience told him he needed to strike down the fascist order.




So you don't think anyone in the French Resistance fought against Nazis simply for the sake of wanting to fight against someone?  Gee, that sounds _completely contradictory_ to what you said earlier.



> Beside war profiteer, you want to know where you can find the most real life personalities that can be matched to the CE description?  Not against the nazis, WITH the nazis.  Some ot these SS were nothing short of madmen performing acts of wanton destruction that borders on caricature.




...Ok?  And?



> The result of the american revolution was the most thorough state of right (In other words, Lawful society) that the world had seen until that point in history.




It didn't become that until MANY years later.  At the time, it was a bunch of uppity hicks from a backwater country rebelling against the most generous and kind government in Europe.  



> Where do _you_ think they fit in the Chaos / Lawful spectrum?




I always think of myself as more neutral ;p



> Forgetting about good and evil, I'd say most were neutral except the framers who were the definition of Lawful.  There would have been a handful of chaotic but these would turn out to be sorely disappointed with the result seeing as the United states became more orderly after than before the revolution.  They then proceeded to migrate west.




But I very specifically pointed out the Sons of Liberty who, yes, _were_ terrorists.  You didn't answer that point.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 20, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Immanuel Kant would be highly disappointed in your shortsightedness.  Considering it's a major school of philosophy dedicated to the idea that Good and Evil are objective and intention independent yet can be ascertained through rational thought I would say your philosophical horizon is rather narrow.  Even philosophers who disagree with Kant do not contend objective ethics structures create inability to define moral action.




Psh, stop being such a simulationister, or whatever that silly label is, you stingy old grognard.  Stuff in the real world is totally passe.

I say 4e should have two alignments, Should Be Killed, and PC.  That's TOTALLY going to simplify it, and all your alignments can still fit in!


----------



## Celebrim (May 20, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Of course it's semantic.  But obviously it's necessary to absorb.
> You believe that being Chaotic is to be devoted to the idea of Chaos.  I believe that the way WotC is defining it is as Actually Chaotic.




You keep trying to draw these fine distinctions that don't really matter to much.  I feel quite comfortable in saying that both "devoted to the idea of Chaos" and "Actually Chaotic" can be described as "chaotic" in any edition of the game.  These and many other variations on a chaotic disposition or belief system can all be classified as chaotic.  You certainly wouldn't describe "devoted to the idea of Chaos" as lawful.  Apparently in the new edition the best we are expected to be able to do is 'unaligned'?  



> No reason to drop an assumption that makes every bit of sense.




Really.  Ok, didn't we earlier have this exchange:



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well, as Cicero says, rarely does anyone do evil to achieve evil ends. Rather they do evil because they think that there will be some good profit to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If intentionality is the be all end all of evil actions, then by your own admission hardly anyone ever does anything that is evil.  This seems to me to cause everything to fall apart, because here you are claiming that an act is only evil based on its intentions but that most peoples intentions are good.  And yet you also seem willing to claim that you can identify the evil consequences of an action.  If evil was really defined by its intentionality, how would you ever identify those evil consequences?  Surely you could only recognize evil from its motives if evil really was solely defined by its intention.  So you must in fact believe that there is some intrinsic quality to things other than how people intended them.  And if so, then it seems to me that we can use those instrinsic qualities to define evil.  If we don't, then things really do fall apart, because we would be forced to say things like, "Murdering children is not an evil action, it just might have evil consequences."

And in any event, quite a few people smarter than I have created rigorously argued philosophies of objectivism.  It seems to me that in a fantasy world were good and evil objectively exist that objectivism is likely to be the rule of the day.



> You are talking about something other than what I am talking about.  You are talking about a Lawful *and* Evil person.  Not a Lawfully Evil person.




No, I'm talking about either one.  It seems to me that either the lawful/evil person or the lawfully evil person or the evilly lawful person are all best put in the ethical bucket 'lawful evil'.  It's a big bucket, with plenty of room for all sorts of different beliefs and degrees of extremism or sincerety.  But I really don't see how a bucket labelled anything else is more descriptive of a person who is lawful and evil.



> I agree that Lawful/Evil can exist (Lawful Evil in the old system).  Yes.  Great.  That's true.  But the new system doesn't define it the same way.




What the new system does is take away some buckets on justifications "you can't really draw a fine disctinction between nuetral good and chaotic good".  But I find that buckets like 'Chaotic Good', 'Chaotic Neutral', 'Lawful Neutral', and 'Lawful Evil' in fact do describe distinctions in belief that make them distinguishable.



> All right.  These philosophies have a definition of evil action that is Completely Irrelevant because it means that you cannot know when you are and are not doing good and evil actions.  And if that is true, then no one would know how to act.




I quite willing to agree that you cannot know with a high degree of accuracy when you are or are not doing good or evil actions, and I'm quite willing to agree that no one knows how to act.  Neither attack much undermines my position, much less that of a person who is lawfully inclined.  Afterall, the fundamental implied tenent behind most lawful philosophies begins something like, "Humans, being of such limited wisdom and perception, are unable to act righteously even if they intend to do so.  Therefore a wise teacher has been provided who will provide rules of conduct such that those that obey them will do good and refrain from evil.  Trust therefore in these laws even when you do not see a clear path."



> I am differentiating between the two editions.  This second one focuses on Good and Evil, and scraps the Lawful and Chaotic "axis."  I think it works better.




Which would be alright if they didn't also throw in buckets like 'lawful good' and 'chaotic evil'.  



> You should probably be arguing that the new system sucks, rather than that the new system should be the old system without qualification.




What I'm arguing is that the new system is both suckier (less logical, less thought provoking, less useful) than the old system, and that it is suckier even than having a single axis system with three buckets (good, unaligned, and evil perhaps).  In fact, it may even be suckier than having no system at all. 



> Um.  Right.  Unaligned people including everyone who isn't at heart devoted to Good or Evil.  I'm sure they have no compunctions about their actions.




Well, if they did, then they'd be aligned with something right?  If you don't have a philosophy how can you feel bad about not doing what you think you _ought_ to do?  And if you think you _ought_ to do something, surely that means that you are aligned with something even if weakly.



> That's fine...it's a hard concept to grasp.




No it isn't.  Hyperdimensionality is a hard concept to grasp.  The tri-unity of the Christian God is a hard concept to grasp.  Quantum mechanics is a hard concept to grasp.  This stuff is still child's play.


----------



## Krensky (May 20, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Alright, let's say it is guerrilla warfare.
> It didn't become that until MANY years later.  At the time, it was a bunch of uppity hicks from a backwater country rebelling against the most generous and kind government in Europe.




Have you even read the relevant documents? The US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are nothing but legalism. Granted it took ten years to go from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, but even the articles themselves were a legalist document.

Not to mention that Jefferson and Franklin were famous in Europe. Heck, one of the issues that lead to everything blowing up is that people (both in the American Colonies and the Continent) were pissed off that Parliament treated Franklin like he was some idiot country bumpkin. The root source of the American War of Independence was that the people living in the colonies were sick of colonialism and actually wanted their rights and prerogatives under British law.


----------



## Family (May 20, 2008)

Krensky said:
			
		

> The root source of the War of Independence was that the people living in the colonies were sick of colonialism and actually wanted their rights.




Mal: "Well, look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. Whaddya suppose that makes us?" 
Zoe: "Big damn heroes, sir." 
Mal: "Ain't we just!"


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 20, 2008)

Wrong American War.

The 'verse is much more post-civil-war.  Firefly essentially atheistic confederate propaganda.  

Take that last line with a grain of salt.  Firefly didn't make it's local rights claims over a human-property issue so the morality meter is all off the chart.


----------



## Family (May 20, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Wrong American War.
> 
> The 'verse is much more post-civil-war.  It's essentially atheistic confederate propaganda.




Admitingly owned.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 20, 2008)

*Off Topic*



			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> ... essentially atheistic confederate propaganda.




You make that sound like a bad thing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 20, 2008)

Krensky said:
			
		

> Have you even read the relevant documents? The US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are nothing but legalism. Granted it took ten years to go from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, but even the articles themselves were a legalist document.
> 
> Not to mention that Jefferson and Franklin were famous in Europe. Heck, one of the issues that lead to everything blowing up is that people (both in the American Colonies and the Continent) were pissed off that Parliament treated Franklin like he was some idiot country bumpkin. The root source of the American War of Independence was that the people living in the colonies were sick of colonialism and actually wanted their rights and prerogatives under British law.




That's nice.

It also has nothing to do with what I said.

Talk to me about the Sons of Liberty and their actions.  Talk to me about the Boston Tea Party.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You keep trying to draw these fine distinctions that don't really matter to much.  I feel quite comfortable in saying that both "devoted to the idea of Chaos" and "Actually Chaotic" can be described as "chaotic" in any edition of the game.  These and many other variations on a chaotic disposition or belief system can all be classified as chaotic.  You certainly wouldn't describe "devoted to the idea of Chaos" as lawful.



Actually, I could.  I probably won't, because it doesn't fit in with the new edition, but I could.



> Apparently in the new edition the best we are expected to be able to do is 'unaligned'?



Yeah...there are so many different kinds of "being devoted to chaos" that pinning them into one alignment doesn't make much sense to me.  And no one is really devoted to chaos, because it takes an organized mind to be devoted, and an organized mind devoted to chaos would be forced to go insane if they are actually devoted to chaos and not some weird ideal of chaotic action.



> If intentionality is the be all end all of evil actions, then by your own admission hardly anyone ever does anything that is evil.  This seems to me to cause everything to fall apart, because here you are claiming that an act is only evil based on its intentions but that most peoples intentions are good.



I actually don't think most people's intentions are good.  Is that your own contention?



> And yet you also seem willing to claim that you can identify the evil consequences of an action.  If evil was really defined by its intentionality, how would you ever identify those evil consequences?  Surely you could only recognize evil from its motives if evil really was solely defined by its intention.  So you must in fact believe that there is some intrinsic quality to things other than how people intended them.  And if so, then it seems to me that we can use those instrinsic qualities to define evil.  If we don't, then things really do fall apart, because we would be forced to say things like, "Murdering children is not an evil action, it just might have evil consequences."



If you're asking how we can decide whether others are good or evil, I'd argue that we can't.  I don't see this as an issue when we're talking about a stat on a character sheet that presumably no other character can see.
You seem to be claiming that the ends define the means.  Which I find odd.



> And in any event, quite a few people smarter than I have created rigorously argued philosophies of objectivism.  It seems to me that in a fantasy world were good and evil objectively exist that objectivism is likely to be the rule of the day.



Objectivism is an interesting idea.  Accepting it means that you will never be able to understand moral truth, _ever_, by the nature of being human.  Therefore, any absolute objective moral truth you think that you are right concerning, you are automatically wrong.  You cannot consciously do good acts and you cannot do evil acts because you must acknowledge that you can never know the truth unless you take it on the authority of someone else, and then you are rejecting objectivity.  Theorists can claim that there is a moral truth, but they'll never understand what it is, and if they will never understand what it is, they'll prescribe to false principles.  Even if it's a true idea, it's also completely useless as far as determining moral action.
This still has nothing to do with the actual argument, unfortunately.



> No, I'm talking about either one.  It seems to me that either the lawful/evil person or the lawfully evil person or the evilly lawful person are all best put in the ethical bucket 'lawful evil'.  It's a big bucket, with plenty of room for all sorts of different beliefs and degrees of extremism or sincerety.  But I really don't see how a bucket labelled anything else is more descriptive of a person who is *lawful and evil*.



Emphasis mine.



> What the new system does is take away some buckets on justifications "you can't really draw a fine disctinction between nuetral good and chaotic good".  But I find that buckets like 'Chaotic Good', 'Chaotic Neutral', 'Lawful Neutral', and 'Lawful Evil' in fact do describe distinctions in belief that make them distinguishable.



Unfortunately, there are so many varieties of each due to the complexity of one's nature with order and chaos that I don't think they're really descriptive at all; the only method by which they're descriptive is when they in fact previously prescribed stereotyped Lawful and Chaotic actions (uphold the man-made law or free the peoplez).



> I quite willing to agree that you cannot know with a high degree of accuracy when you are or are not doing good or evil actions, and I'm quite willing to agree that no one knows how to act.  Neither attack much undermines my position, much less that of a person who is lawfully inclined.  Afterall, the fundamental implied tenent behind most lawful philosophies begins something like, "Humans, being of such limited wisdom and perception, are unable to act righteously even if they intend to do so.  Therefore a wise teacher has been provided who will provide rules of conduct such that those that obey them will do good and refrain from evil.  Trust therefore in these laws even when you do not see a clear path."



Ok...this has nothing to do with whether or not they are actually acting in a good or evil fashion.  If it did, good and evil would be defined by causal chains that stretch back into an infinite regress.  And those things just suck...
Accepting determinism as a basis for moral philosophy?  Doesn't work.



> Which would be alright if they didn't also throw in buckets like 'lawful good' and 'chaotic evil'.



This is only a problem if you accept the outdated definitions of lawful and chaotic.



> What I'm arguing is that the new system is both suckier (less logical, less thought provoking, less useful) than the old system, and that it is suckier even than having a single axis system with three buckets (good, unaligned, and evil perhaps).  In fact, it may even be suckier than having no system at all.



But you've yet to actually give evidence of why the suckiness is sucky.
Anyway, I'd argue that it's more logical (there's no "bucket" that covers a multitude of differing philosophies), more thought provoking (blanket statements of Lawful and Chaotic tend towards defining people into stereotyped personas based on said alignment), and more useful (having no system of alignment has always been more fun than having a system, and this is closer to that if not actually that).



> Well, if they did, then they'd be aligned with something right?  If you don't have a philosophy how can you feel bad about not doing what you think you _ought_ to do?  And if you think you _ought_ to do something, surely that means that you are aligned with something even if weakly.



Unaligned would be anyone who doesn't have a 100% chance of aligning with good or evil under pressure.  You can be sort of aligned, but that doesn't make you fully aligned.  That's where Unaligned comes in, where alignment goes out the window as mattering.



> No it isn't.  Hyperdimensionality is a hard concept to grasp.  The tri-unity of the Christian God is a hard concept to grasp.  Quantum mechanics is a hard concept to grasp.  This stuff is still child's play.



Glad to hear it.
What's strange and conflicting is: I agree.


----------



## Krensky (May 20, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> That's nice.
> 
> It also has nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> Talk to me about the Sons of Liberty and their actions.  Talk to me about the Boston Tea Party.




It has everything to do with your comment about your comments that the United States didn't become legalist until much later.


----------



## JetstreamGW (May 21, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Here is my take.
> 
> LG and CE are just descriptors of certain types.





I agree, however, I'd be a little more... classic... with the look of the chart 


Also, before anyone says it, I know I"m using the yin yang improperly, I just thought the shape lent itself well to illustrating the point.

I even managed to make something akin to an unaligned graph. Yay, I made paint serve my whim!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Krensky said:
			
		

> It has everything to do with your comment about your comments that the United States didn't become legalist until much later.




So what, we're agreeing that the chaotic behavior of rebelling against the government (who DID try to help the colonies out and DID repeal some of the taxes sent towards them) led to a Lawful government?

Not entirely unheard of ;p

Besides which, come on, Sons of Liberty!  Your thoughts?


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure defending your homeland, your neighbors, and your family, is.



As someone upthread pointed out, this premise entails that nearly every act of guerilla violence is good. That is a claim which is controversial (I can give examples if desired, but I think that, given the board rules, it may be safer not to).



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> if a law is evil, then a lawful good person works to change the law or better the society.



Why would a Chaotic Good person not do the same, if that was the most effective way to ensure the wellbeing of those affected by the laws?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Assuming only you assume 'freedom' is a thing of enherent absolute goodness.  Our American society holds it as such for what I think are good and sufficient reasons
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Do you advocate that policeman should break down doors without due process any time they suspect a crime may have been committed?



So is a belief in constitutional government and the freedom that it ensures Chaotic (as the first bit of the quote suggests) or lawful (as the second bit suggests)?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The Boston Tea Party is particularly apt because, among other things...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Both (c) and (d) make controversial claims (eg about the novelty of the political principle, about the democratic character of the United Kingdom and its empire, about the justice of that empire, etc).

Also, if "no taxation without representation" and associated beliefs in constitutional government are Chaotic, then what sorts of government does a Lawful Good person support? Despotism?



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Again, lawful evil exists.  I'm pretty sure it's against the law in Germany to say otherwise.



The suggestion that National Socialism is Lawful Evil is highly controversial. For example, Lon Fuller's famous debate with HLA Hart was over the question as to whether or not the National Socialist regime had laws. Fuller denied that it did - which suggests that, by D&D standards, it was in fact Chaotic.



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Some where chaotic good - fighting to defend others.  Some were chaotic evil - fighting to remove the law.  One is good, one is evil, but both team up because they both hate the very lawful evil nazis.



The notion that the Resistance fought the Germans because they hated dictatorship per se is silly - after all, a number of them were Communists who were hoping to establish a dictatorship. They mostly fought the Germans because they wanted self-government (ie for much the same reason as the French fought the Germans in the 19th century even though the German government of the time was probably no more despotic than the French, or as the Partisans fought the Germans in the same war, or as the Spanish fought Napoleon's armies in an earlier war).



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> As Good (capital g) is commonly understood in the West, the less benefit you derive from helping someone, the more Good it is.



I'm not sure exactly who "the West" is here, but this notion seems somewhat simplistic. For example, the standard understanding of early modern Protestant moral theology is that what is good is the pursuit of one's own benefit (see, eg, Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). This assertion is also an important part of the rhetoric of most contemporary political parties in the English speaking world (espcially those of the Right and Centre Right). This is also a presupposition of most contemporary economic theory that all individual action is aimed at increasing that individual's personal utility - and this is one of the most important theoretical influences on contemporary public polilcy. But it is controversial to say, I think, that those who design and implement this policy are opposing Good.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> That is, all your arguments seem to indicate that you think lawfulness is an unseparatable component of goodness.



Others who have believed this (or something like it) are Lon Fuller, EP Thompson, and most proponents of constitutional government. The traditional D&D alignment system, by presupposing without argument that Law and Good are independent notions, commits itself to a very controversial position in moral and legal philosophy. That is just one of the difficulties that the traditional system faces.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Put at the extreme - how can changing the laws be lawful behaviour?



This is a very good point. A whole lot of this discussion seems to assume that certain contemporary social and political beliefs and experiences (primarily, those one has in the US) are universal. In fact, they are rather particular. And also rather difficult to project onto pseudo-medieval society.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> For most of human history, slavery was practiced as a part of normal human society



For most of human history nothing like contemporary constitutional government existed. Indeed, for most of human (pre-)history nothing like government existed. Attention to the historical diversity of the forms of human life is a good reason for abandoing any notion of a nine-place alignment system that is able to properly classify the moral significance of all human behaviour.



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Immanuel Kant[/url] would be highly disappointed in your shortsightedness.  Considering it's a major school of philosophy dedicated to the idea that Good and Evil are objective and intention independent yet can be ascertained through rational thought I would say your philosophical horizon is rather narrow.



Actually, Kant thinks that intention (ie the content of the will, the maxim in accordance with which one acts) is crucial to the moral character of action. He is perhaps the most thorough-going anti-consequentialist in the European tradition.

What is objective, according to Kant, is the rightness (or at least permissibility) of maxims which accord with the Categorical Imperative and the wrongness of maxims which do not.



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Even philosophers who disagree with Kant do not contend objective ethics structures create inability to define moral action.



I am a philosopher who disagrees with Kant. I don't understand the phrase "objective ethics structures create inability to define moral action" so I don't know if I contend that it is the case or not.

I do think that if, in order to apply the D&D alignment system, one has to agree with Kant, then that is an objection to it, because Kant is controversial.

A bigger objection to the system is that, in order to apply it, the players of the game have to agree on a wide range of moral propositions, _the truth value of which cannot simply be read off the genre_. If the new system will remedy this problem, by only defining alignments which are adequately characterised by the genre, then it will be a signficiant improvement.


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2008)

Krensky said:
			
		

> Have you even read the relevant documents? The US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are nothing but legalism. Granted it took ten years to go from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, but even the articles themselves were a legalist document.
> 
> Not to mention that Jefferson and Franklin were famous in Europe. Heck, one of the issues that lead to everything blowing up is that people (both in the American Colonies and the Continent) were pissed off that Parliament treated Franklin like he was some idiot country bumpkin. The root source of the American War of Independence was that the people living in the colonies were sick of colonialism and actually wanted their rights and prerogatives under British law.



Good post. Given that individual posters cannot, in their own posts, maintain consistency as to whether constitutionalism is a Lawful or a Chaotic notion, their assertions that the difference between Law and Chaos is unequivocal strike me as dubious.


----------



## Celebrim (May 21, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> So is a belief in constitutional government and the freedom that it ensures Chaotic (as the first bit of the quote suggests) or lawful (as the second bit suggests)?




The American constitutional document is an attempt to enshrine values that are in D&D terms enherently chaotic and born in large part out of a generation of radicalism and rebellion.  Of course, the framer's themselves would not have for the most part used the term 'enshrine' as I have, as the never intended or expected the document to be enduring and socially protected in quite the context 'enshrine' implies.  So what you have in America is something of an apparant contridiction, in that for example 'conservative' economic values in America are what in most parts of the world are called 'liberal'.  In America we have an essentially Libertarian system which is codified in an increasingly baroque system of laws.  For example, you won't find hardly anywhere that has quite the same values of 'Freedom of Speach' as the American system, nor will you find hardly anywhere that has quite the same commitment to individual gun rights as America.  Likewise, the United States isn't a single unified government, but a patchwork quilt of governments and laws with degrees of sovereignty going all the way down to the local level.  It is almost unique in this.  A person from France would probably be shocked to learn that local elected officials - Sheriffs - with a constuiency of a few thousands in some cases can in practice and theory excercise soveriegn jurisdiction rights within thier county.  France, for those that don't know, has a single national police system.

Of course, this originally vibrant and Libertarian system is increasingly ossifying, but that doesn't change its original character - minimalist, individualist, and populist.

And sure, not every founder could be said to have a chaotic disposition in D&D terms.  Notably, men like Washington and Hamilton are classic examples of 'lawful' minded individuals.  But on the whole, the country was founded by a bunch of radical firebrands.  



> Both (c) and (d) make controversial claims (eg about the novelty of the political principle, about the democratic character of the United Kingdom and its empire, about the justice of that empire, etc).




It's hard to make a claim that isn't controversial, but I'm prepared to defend them.



> Also, if "no taxation without representation" and associated beliefs in constitutional government are Chaotic, then what sorts of government does a Lawful Good person support? Despotism?




More or less, yes.  Lawful minded individuals always favor government by the few, by the able, or by the elect.  Rule by the mob is always feared by the lawful minded.  Democracy is not an inherently 'lawful' system of government in the D&D sense of the word.  A lawful person in an existing democratic system can have allegiance to that system, even an unwavering one, but then again a lawful system can have a chaotic ruler too.  Nothing forbids things getting complicated and messy, and in a realisticly detailed system we would expect them to.  

I think you get a good contrast in how a chaotic system views the law when you notice that the Constitution is subject to ammendment, and not just ammendment by anyone or someone, but by everyone.  Contrast that with the account of the government of Persia recorded in the Book of Daniel, where it reports that the law 'of the Medes and Persians' was by inflexible custom not even overturnable by the sovereign ruler who excercised by todays standards virtually unlimited autocratic authority.  I think it is pretty easy to see which system holds the law and which individuality on the higher platform.  We have no notions of irrevocable law.  We largely take for granted that all customs are overturnable.  We even have a word 'fashion' which refers to the customs that change with the seasons according to whim.



> The suggestion that National Socialism is Lawful Evil is highly controversial. For example, Lon Fuller's famous debate with HLA Hart was over the question as to whether or not the National Socialist regime had laws. Fuller denied that it did - which suggests that, by D&D standards, it was in fact Chaotic.




I would strongly agree that the leadership of the Nazi party were highly 'chaotic' individuals for the most part who governed not through laws but rather through personal relationships and decrees.  However, this core 'chaotic evil' leadership harnessed the naturally highly organized culture of the German people which on the whole was lawful in inclination to set up a very efficient police state.  So again, you have a tension in that you can't easily classify the whole system, but bits and peices of it are quite clear.



> I'm not sure exactly who "the West" is here, but this notion seems somewhat simplistic.




Well, of course it is.  What am I supposed to be doing, writing a book?



> For example, the standard understanding of early modern Protestant moral theology is that what is good is the pursuit of one's own benefit (see, eg, Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).




While that is true, its easily dismissed by noting that you've substituted 'what is good' for the essential question, 'what is most good'.  Protestantism broke to a certain extent from traditional Christianity by denying the inherent moral value of poverty, reading for example the beautitudes as 'blessed are the poor in spirit' rather than 'blessed are the poor', but it did not in doing so claim that charity to strangers was rendered less good than miserliness.  Rather it moved prosperity up into the virtuous category without displacing charity as a value. 



> This assertion is also an important part of the rhetoric of most contemporary political parties in the English speaking world (espcially those of the Right and Centre Right). This is also a presupposition of most contemporary economic theory that all individual action is aimed at increasing that individual's personal utility - and this is one of the most important theoretical influences on contemporary public polilcy. But it is controversial to say, I think, that those who design and implement this policy are opposing Good.




I don't think it is necessary to suggest that to suggest that in the ideal the West holds altruism as being more virtuous than mere prosperity, even if in practice we may celebrate something different.



> Others who have believed this (or something like it) are Lon Fuller, EP Thompson, and most proponents of constitutional government.




Then in D&D terms we would hold that those individuals are lawful good.



> The traditional D&D alignment system, by presupposing without argument that Law and Good are independent notions, commits itself to a very controversial position in moral and legal philosophy.




Woah. Woah.  Woah.  The traditional D&D alignment rules make no argument that good and law are independent notions.  In fact, if anything traditionally, D&D has had as its implied assumption - perhaps in error and perhaps not - that 'lawful good' is more good than other sorts of good.  D&D has traditionally reserved its most saintly and virtuous descriptions for the followers of 'lawful good'.  So I don't think you can argue that at all. 

I think primarily, the traditional D&D alignment system makes no argument about which moral philosophy is the 'right' one.  It traditionally has not forced you to play anything, and in particular in earlier systems only very weakly or not at all encouraged you to play 'Good' or choose 'goodness'.  As far as the D&D alignment system is concerned, any of the nine subgroups could be righly aligned at the top of the chart as the most correct set of beliefs.  It isn't forcing a particular interpretation on you.  It is merely suggesting that for the purposes of fantasy, these are useful philosophical groupings, and that you can only get further with them by examining the philosophical and literary value of terms like 'good', 'evil', 'law', and 'chaos'.  Certainly there is nothing within the D&D system which suggests that the adherents of the various philosophies with in the game universe admit the truth of say 'Nuetral Good' as the highest good if they themselves believe something different.  Perhaps it could be that real goodness as you define it is found by embracing the tenents of law and evil, and not the one conventionally labeled 'good' at all. 

In fact, this balance between the systems was so inherent in 1st edition AD&D that I was convinced shortly after encountering it that the designer of the cosmology had to be a student of Hinduism, Taoism or one of the other Eastern religions promoting 'harmony' as its highest virtue.  



> This is a very good point. A whole lot of this discussion seems to assume that certain contemporary social and political beliefs and experiences (primarily, those one has in the US) are universal. In fact, they are rather particular. And also rather difficult to project onto pseudo-medieval society.




It is obviously true to me that the particulars of the US culture and government are extremely particular.  In fact, I dare say that I believe them to be more particular than you do unless you are a particularly 'extremist' sort of person yourself.  But it is not at all obviously true to me that any argument I'm making depends on these particulars, and I've repeatedly made reference to other systems and cultures separated from modern America in both time and space.



> For most of human history nothing like contemporary constitutional government existed. Indeed, for most of human (pre-)history nothing like government existed.




Agreed, and agreed.  



> Attention to the historical diversity of the forms of human life is a good reason for abandoing any notion of a nine-place alignment system that is able to properly classify the moral significance of all human behaviour.




Even to the extent that I agree with you, I don't see how that follows from what you've said.  More ancient systems are actually typically easier to classify than more recent ones by the virtue of the fact that they are generally much simplier, much less internally diverse, much smaller, and so forth.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 21, 2008)

Pemerton:  This is why posting in the wee hours of the morning leads to misunderstandings.  I'll try to explain my positions on the matter more fully.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Actually, Kant thinks that intention (ie the content of the will, the maxim in accordance with which one acts) is crucial to the moral character of action. He is perhaps the most thorough-going anti-consequentialist in the European tradition.



We aren't so much disagreeing here on terminology.  You are drawing a hard line between Maxim and act whereas my readings of Kant always tended to give the impression Maxim and Act are one and the same at a certain level.  For example, the Maxim:  Humans must always be considered not a means but an end in themselves.  This maxim is like a metatemplate for actions.  All acts which consider humans as ends in themselves are Good, those which consider humans a means to an end are Evil (to use D&D terms).  The Maxims are broad categories which could be broken down into individual self-contained Maxim/Action units.  Similarly while it's probably me who is using the term wrongly Consequentialism is not what I was attempting to convey.  I was moving from deontological rather than consequentialist reasoning.  That the Alignment system of 3e/etc. were deontological absolutist systems in which the moral weight of the act is purely in the act not the results thereof.  We can see this in the older system from the objective and material nature of alignment in the mechanics.  Kant was both an objectivist and an absolutist, the only issue really is that his insistence on intent was a result of the free will/determinism conflict.  Which in certain contexts strikes me as missing it's own point, this is one of them.  The quality of individual actions having an objective, absolute, and quantifiable morality in themselves independent of intent does not preclude free will.  The ability to act in an unconstrained and non-deterministic fashion is preserved.  What causes a fit is that modeling certain religious systems they have presupposed unequal weights between the Good and Evil ends of the moral spectrum and assigned differing validity to them based on this.  Mostly in postulates that benevolance is an integral or foundational part of free will.



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> I am a philosopher who disagrees with Kant. I don't understand the phrase "objective ethics structures create inability to define moral action" so I don't know if I contend that it is the case or not.



This was one of those early in the morning garbles.   I was responding to an argument from what seemed to be a primarily utilitarian view that objective ethics cannot be judged because there is no way to know their consequences.  What I was attempting to convey is that the morality of actions do not become undefined or imperceivable in a system that holds to an objective morality standard.  It's the criteria by which they may be known that change.   An system such as Kant's or the 3e Alignment system does not operate on a consequentialist basis thus it cannot be measured using consequentialist criteria.  But that does not mean it cannot be measured at all.  Muffin of Chaos was attempting to evaluate the morality using improper criteria for that particular system and coming up with a null value answer.  Expected, but he jumps to the conclusion that because one set of criteria give no value all must give no value.



> A bigger objection to the system is that, in order to apply it, the players of the game have to agree on a wide range of moral propositions, _the truth value of which cannot simply be read off the genre_. If the new system will remedy this problem, by only defining alignments which are adequately characterised by the genre, then it will be a signficiant improvement.



No arguing with you here in that such a simplification seriously cuts down on potential discord.  I just hate to see such a full system, with such a unique basis and ideas go away.  Especially when it's a system that can cause a game to spawn serious philosophical considerations on the nature of morality.  And especially that its constraints and nature are so different than RL.


----------



## Hambot (May 21, 2008)

I am so glad that alignment is back to its original intent - to give you a framework to imagine your characters overall world view, before you leave it behind and create their personality and actions.

I like playing D&D.  

I don't like playing "your neutral good character wouldn't stab that tied up goblin in the head because he has good in his alignment descriptor.  The fact that he was killed by goblins 10 days ago is irrelevant because he would see them as being like simple animals.  He wakes up and can't cast druid spells any more because his god abandons him."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Hambot said:
			
		

> I am so glad that alignment is back to its original intent - to give you a framework to imagine your characters overall world view, before you leave it behind and create their personality and actions.
> 
> I like playing D&D.
> 
> I don't like playing "your neutral good character wouldn't stab that tied up goblin in the head because he has good in his alignment descriptor.  The fact that he was killed by goblins 10 days ago is irrelevant because he would see them as being like simple animals.  He wakes up and can't cast druid spells any more because his god abandons him."




Heh, ironically, this kind of thinking is _exactly_ what I and, I think, a few others are most afraid of.  This idea of "My character can and should be able to do EVERYTHING!*"

If you go against your god's edicts, the god is going to say "Wait, what?  Fine then, screw you, no God Juice for your ass."  That's not a flaw in the system, nor is it - to cut it off pre-emptively - a strict "gamist" or "simulationist" outlook.  It's how the world(s, if you want to be that way) work - what the gods give, the gods can and will take away, especially if they find you drifting from the party line.  It's no different in politics, in work, in your every day social ramblings with other people, or in the way you catagorize your own thoughts.

*As opposed to characters being able to do anything, which is a different beast altogether.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

I personally hope the Gods are less strict on alignment. I would like to see a God front itself as being good and lawful for example. With lots of Lawful Good Paladins who maintain order in a religious city-state.

However this same God empowers; ruthless, self-centred Evil assassins to do its dirty work in other various parts of the world. Against other Gods in their never ending, cosmology spanning tug-of-war with the minds and bodies of lesser beings.


----------



## VannATLC (May 21, 2008)

Most Gods, from historical (fictional) example, and from rational extrapolation of a DND God's basic characterisations, will be more interested in generally promoting the things the like.. and quite likely to just accept the costs of it.

Gods are people too, mmmkay?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I personally hope the Gods are less strict on alignment. I would like to see a God front itself as being good and lawful for example. With lots of Lawful Good Paladins who maintain order in a religious city-state.
> 
> However this same God empowers; ruthless, self-centred Evil assassins to do its dirty work in other various parts of the world. Against other Gods in their never ending, cosmology spanning tug-of-war with the minds and bodies of lesser beings.




Well, what I'm getting at is, if your powers are granted by that tree-hugging hippy (have I mentioned I dislike rangers and druids?) god who promotes happy feelings and goodness, they're not gonna be too pleased when they come back from their most recent poker game to find you, the person they decided to throw some God Juice into, going around and being a merciless rat bastard in their name.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

If the actions the Druid (Rangers are no longer tied to a god)... Though then again, neither are Druids *coughs* anyways.

If the actions the god's (divine-class) has taken upon is serving the means of the god. I imagine it would probably give the (divine-class) a good talking too about keeping their association secret but to continue doing what it is doing. 

I guess what I am saying is, I imagine gods like a political party. They put on a front to gain members, but those within the party know more about its dirty little secrets and are allowed to use what means there are to gain an advantage over other political parties.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> If the actions the Druid (Rangers are no longer tied to a god)... Though then again, neither are Druids *coughs* anyways.
> 
> If the actions the god's (divine-class) has taken upon is serving the means of the god. I imagine it would probably give the (divine-class) a good talking too about keeping their association secret but to continue doing what it is doing.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is, I imagine gods like a political party. They put on a front to gain members, but those within the party know more about its dirty little secrets and are allowed to use what means there are to gain an advantage over other political parties.




Ah, but unlike a political party, a god can literally say "You know what?  You're not with our group anymore" and then kick you out and take away your God Juice.  Immidiately and with no paperwork, at that.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Ah, but unlike a political party, a god can literally say "You know what?  You're not with our group anymore" and then kick you out and take away your God Juice.  Immidiately and with no paperwork, at that.



Yes, but I think a god is smarter then that. So while that could happen on occasion. IF the person is still acting in the interests of that god. Then he could still serve and be given power from the god and begin doing more "behind-the-scenes" work.

I could see small groups of Clerics or Paladins who broke their codes or ethics they were first instilled with when joining that following. But still serve their god, working behind the scenes doing things like; assassinations, illegal holy excavations, hunting down beings that offended the god, politically/socially/economically taking down other churches in the city, etc.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Yes, but I think a god is smarter then that. So while that could happen on occasion. IF the person is still acting in the interests of that god. Then he could still serve and be given power from the god and begin doing more "behind-the-scenes" work.
> 
> I could see small groups of Clerics or Paladins who broke their codes or ethics they were first instilled with when joining that following. But still serve their god, working behind the scenes doing things like; assassinations, illegal holy excavations, hunting down beings that offended the god, politically/socially/economically taking down other churches in the city, etc.




But see, this isn't a political party, this is a god.  Jeff the god of hippies has several _thousand_ worshipers who he could pump up with his magic instead of you.  Why keep you around?

Besides, again, the lawful good aligned god IS good.  Doing the assassinations and such is something they literally cannot allow to happen in their hiearchy - that would mean the god is contradicting _itself_.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Well thus why I put in my original post that I hope gods are less strict with alignment. So meant also the gods own. So while their behaviour/beliefs may swing towards Lawful Good (thus their alignment is LG) they are not bound by it, it is simply a dominant trait of their personality.

As for why keep those few around, well for the exact reason his existence as a follower comes into question. He has deviated from your prescribed views, as such you don't have to hide your actual means of gaining power from him.


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> We aren't so much disagreeing here on terminology.  You are drawing a hard line between Maxim and act whereas my readings of Kant always tended to give the impression Maxim and Act are one and the same at a certain level.  For example, the Maxim:  Humans must always be considered not a means but an end in themselves.  This maxim is like a metatemplate for actions.  All acts which consider humans as ends in themselves are Good, those which consider humans a means to an end are Evil (to use D&D terms).  The Maxims are broad categories which could be broken down into individual self-contained Maxim/Action units.  Similarly while it's probably me who is using the term wrongly Consequentialism is not what I was attempting to convey.  I was moving from deontological rather than consequentialist reasoning.  That the Alignment system of 3e/etc. were deontological absolutist systems in which the moral weight of the act is purely in the act not the results thereof.



OK, but how does one individuate acts? If not by their consequences, then by the intentions that generated and guided them, presumably.

To put it another way: both deontologists and consequentialilsts care about acts. But they differ in their criteria for act-individuation and hence act-evaluation: intention for deontologists, consequences for consequentialism.



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> The quality of individual actions having an objective, absolute, and quantifiable morality in themselves independent of intent does not preclude free will.



I don't really want to get into a discussion of free will. I'll just ask - if this moral quality is independent of the agent's intention, _and_ is independent of the consequences that result from the action, then what does it depend upon?

To answer "the maxim" will not help. The maxim is simply a description of the action. I know how to describe actions by reference to agents' intentions. I know how to describe them by reference to their consequences. But what other description is available here?



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I was responding to an argument from what seemed to be a primarily utilitarian view that objective ethics cannot be judged because there is no way to know their consequences.



Does "judging an objective ethics" mean working out whether or not it is true?

Anyway, there is no obvious contrast between consequentialism and moral objectivism. Most major consequentialists have been objectivists (J S Mill, Sidgwick, and on at least some interpretations Hare and Singer).



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> No arguing with you here in that such a simplification seriously cuts down on potential discord.  I just hate to see such a full system, with such a unique basis and ideas go away.  Especially when it's a system that can cause a game to spawn serious philosophical considerations on the nature of morality.  And especially that its constraints and nature are so different than RL.



This I don't understand. Why not just have philosophical discussions about what is actually happening in the game. How does a nonsensical moral framework imposed by the game designers facilitate moral reflection?


----------



## Hambot (May 21, 2008)

Religion is about following an ideal.

Religious people are forever trying to follow those ideals, but constantly screwing up.  What empowers them is that they never give up trying to better themselves.(/evil themselves)

A god who smites you for screwing up once is an idiot who will be one of terry pratchetts small gods in small order (no followers, desperately seeking more, kinda like Banjo in GITP)

A god who warns a PC from straying from the path is providing a path to follow, and is a being worthy of worship.

I agree with the professor on one point - be a jerk too many times and you're out of the faith club.  But DM screwing over 1 PC because his single awful action doesn't match your interpretation of 5 lines of alignment text in a book isn't fun, hence why I'm glad the whole framework is watered down.


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Heh, ironically, this kind of thinking is _exactly_ what I and, I think, a few others are most afraid of.  This idea of "My character can and should be able to do EVERYTHING!*"



Why do we need to restrict what PCs do?

Or to put it another way - if the players want to play a certain game, what is the objection to that?

Or to put it yet another way - if the players don't really want to play a game of heroic fantasy, but we make the rules be that you can only get access to Raise Dead if your PC is a hero, then what has been achieved? How has the net amount of pleasure in the world been increased (which surely is part of what playing a game is about!)



			
				Hambot said:
			
		

> DM screwing over 1 PC because his single awful action doesn't match your interpretation of 5 lines of alignment text in a book isn't fun, hence why I'm glad the whole framework is watered down.



Amen to that!


----------



## WalterKovacs (May 21, 2008)

Also, the reason why a god may be lenient with his follower?

Well, the follower is a PC, with class levels.

Having class levels makes that character a "point of light". Clerics, especially one with quite a few levels, isn't exactly common. 

Similar to the old "attonement" type rituals ... certain gods will give you a slap on the wrist, and a promise from you not to do it again, should you break the rules. Excommunication would only be in extreme circumstances ... and you could probably find another god that would be glad to catch you on the rebound  So instead of a Paladin falling and becoming a Blackguard ... he swaps to an evil diety and perhaps has to swap a couple powers [since it seems that dieties have some powers specific to them for the divine characters to get access to.]


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Why do we need to restrict what PCs do?
> 
> Or to put it another way - if the players want to play a certain game, what is the objection to that?
> 
> Or to put it yet another way - if the players don't really want to play a game of heroic fantasy, but we make the rules be that you can only get access to Raise Dead if your PC is a hero, then what has been achieved? How has the net amount of pleasure in the world been increased (which surely is part of what playing a game is about!)




Well, you don't limit the PC on what they can POTENTIALLY do, no, but there needs to be some limitations, otherwise this wouldn't be a class or level based game, it would be a bunch of people with obscene super powers and the ability to do everything they want whenever they want running around having over the top dragonball Z fights.  And I don't like Exalted ;p

What I'm getting at is, a PC should be able to do anything, but not EVERYTHING.  Choices need consequences, otherwise they're empty, meaningless choices.  If you decide to take this class, you don't get the bonuses of the other class.  Or if you multiclass, you lose out on something else there, too.  So a player can, ideally, choose to be *anything!*  But he can't be _everything_. 

Hopefully my 2 am ramblings make sense.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Hambot said:
			
		

> Religion is about following an ideal.
> 
> Religious people are forever trying to follow those ideals, but constantly screwing up.  What empowers them is that they never give up trying to better themselves.(/evil themselves)
> 
> ...




Oh, I'm not trying to say that it's one strike you're out, heh.  I'm just saying that the god eventually says "Look you crazy bastard, this has gone on far enough.  Gerrout!"  In other words, lawful good paladins can't run around eating babies and them scream foul because "That's how I roleplay!"


----------



## Hambot (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm not trying to say that it's one strike you're out, heh.  I'm just saying that the god eventually says "Look you crazy bastard, this has gone on far enough.  Gerrout!"  In other words, lawful good paladins can't run around eating babies and them scream foul because "That's how I roleplay!"





Sounds like the "Lawful good" racist nazi elf in my DragonLance group.

Also the DM's girlfriend.

But it was the Druid who got nailed for "breaking alignment"

Alignment - ruining your game, if you can't all agree on what the 9 boxes represent.

With only 5 boxes there should only be HALF as many arguments.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Well, you don't limit the PC on what they can POTENTIALLY do, no, but there needs to be some limitations, otherwise this wouldn't be a class or level based game, it would be a bunch of people with obscene super powers and the ability to do everything they want whenever they want running around having over the top dragonball Z fights.  And I don't like Exalted ;p
> What I'm getting at is, a PC should be able to do anything, but not EVERYTHING.  Choices need consequences, otherwise they're empty, meaningless choices.  If you decide to take this class, you don't get the bonuses of the other class.  Or if you multiclass, you lose out on something else there, too.  So a player can, ideally, choose to be *anything!*  But he can't be _everything_.



Limitations on the character's actual _moral code_, imposed by a strict alignment system, in a *Role Playing Game*, have always been hard for me to swallow.
There are a literally infinite number of ways to restrict PC powers without modifying their own independent thought processes.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Hambot said:
			
		

> Sounds like the "Lawful good" racist nazi elf in my DragonLance group.
> 
> Also the DM's girlfriend.
> 
> ...




There will be just as many arguments, they will just be about different parts of alignment ;p



			
				muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Limitations on the character's actual _moral code_, imposed by a strict alignment system, in a *Role Playing Game*, have always been hard for me to swallow.
> There are a literally infinite number of ways to restrict PC powers without modifying their own independent thought processes.




Nobody's limiting the character's moral code.  The character is allowed to feel and act however they so desire, and they can change this however many times they desire.

Consequently, their god is equally allowed to say "We used to be cool, now you're a *bad word*.  I warned you.  Now say goodbye to your powers."

Again, choices have _consequences_.  Nobody is stopping you from being a murderous bastage who omnomnoms on children.  But don't be surprised when people start trying to kill you for being a murderous bastage who omnomnoms on children.  I know things being like the real world is totally uncool, but the _basic principals of law and order_ aren't going to suddenly be completely out of whack just because some humans have pointy ears.

...Hell, if anything, this should be even MORE strongly enforced in a points of light setting.  With the breakdown of big kingdoms and general Do Not Leave the Village dangers, it's doubtful that, say, thievery, will get you anything lighter then your hand chopped off.  After all, the purpose of the punishment is to prevent the crime from occuring again.

That's if your lucky.  Other villages will be more hardlined.  There, the purpose of the punishment is to prevent you from _thinking_ about committing the crime again.


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The American constitutional document is an attempt to enshrine values that are in D&D terms enherently chaotic and born in large part out of a generation of radicalism and rebellion.  Of course, the framer's themselves would not have for the most part used the term 'enshrine' as I have, as the never intended or expected the document to be enduring and socially protected in quite the context 'enshrine' implies.  So what you have in America is something of an apparant contridiction, in that for example 'conservative' economic values in America are what in most parts of the world are called 'liberal'.  In America we have an essentially Libertarian system which is codified in an increasingly baroque system of laws.  For example, you won't find hardly anywhere that has quite the same values of 'Freedom of Speach' as the American system, nor will you find hardly anywhere that has quite the same commitment to individual gun rights as America.  Likewise, the United States isn't a single unified government, but a patchwork quilt of governments and laws with degrees of sovereignty going all the way down to the local level.  It is almost unique in this.  A person from France would probably be shocked to learn that local elected officials - Sheriffs - with a constuiency of a few thousands in some cases can in practice and theory excercise soveriegn jurisdiction rights within thier county.  France, for those that don't know, has a single national police system.



This doesn't answer the question - is constitutionalism a chaotic or a lawful value? My own view is that this question has no answer - that constitutionalism (one of the most important of modern political ideals) cannot be adequately described within the D&D framework.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Lawful minded individuals always favor government by the few, by the able, or by the elect.  Rule by the mob is always feared by the lawful minded.



And, given that it is an express feature of the US system of government to avoid rule by the mob (hence, for example, the presidential electoral college) does it therefore follow that the US system of government is lawful?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think you get a good contrast in how a chaotic system views the law when you notice that the Constitution is subject to ammendment, and not just ammendment by anyone or someone, but by everyone.  Contrast that with the account of the government of Persia recorded in the Book of Daniel, where it reports that the law 'of the Medes and Persians' was by inflexible custom not even overturnable by the sovereign ruler who excercised by todays standards virtually unlimited autocratic authority.  I think it is pretty easy to see which system holds the law and which individuality on the higher platform.  We have no notions of irrevocable law.  We largely take for granted that all customs are overturnable.  We even have a word 'fashion' which refers to the customs that change with the seasons according to whim.



In which case every post-enlightenment system of government is chaotic, as they all have methods whereby the law can be lawfully ammended.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I would strongly agree that the leadership of the Nazi party were highly 'chaotic' individuals for the most part who governed not through laws but rather through personal relationships and decrees.  However, this core 'chaotic evil' leadership harnessed the naturally highly organized culture of the German people which on the whole was lawful in inclination to set up a very efficient police state.  So again, you have a tension in that you can't easily classify the whole system, but bits and peices of it are quite clear.



Again, I point out that this claim depends upon assuming (without argument, as far as I can see) that Lon Fuller was wrong and Hart right.

Furthermore, the National Socialist "legal system" had a wide range of methods of ammending its "laws" (indeed, this is part of what Fuller has in mind when he denies that it was not a system of law at all). Does this make it Chaotic rather than Lawful?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The traditional D&D alignment rules make no argument that good and law are independent notions.  In fact, if anything traditionally, D&D has had as its implied assumption - perhaps in error and perhaps not - that 'lawful good' is more good than other sorts of good.  D&D has traditionally reserved its most saintly and virtuous descriptions for the followers of 'lawful good'.  So I don't think you can argue that at all.



Fuller's point is not that Lawfulness is the best Good, as D&D sometimes seems to have it, but rather that Law of necessity tends towards Good, which D&D denies.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Of course, this originally vibrant and Libertarian system is increasingly ossifying, but that doesn't change its original character - minimalist, individualist, and populist.



And committed to the Rule of Law. Is that a lawful or a chaotic commitment?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> on the whole, the country was founded by a bunch of radical firebrands.



But if the correct conclusion, then, is that the Rule of Law is a Chaotic value, I rest my case that the D&D alignment system has been refuted as an adequate framework for moral description - in this case, the refutation is by reductio ad absurdum. 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Protestantism broke to a certain extent from traditional Christianity by denying the inherent moral value of poverty, reading for example the beautitudes as 'blessed are the poor in spirit' rather than 'blessed are the poor', but it did not in doing so claim that charity to strangers was rendered less good than miserliness.  Rather it moved prosperity up into the virtuous category without displacing charity as a value.



Again, this is a controversial claim about economic and social history. I'm not persuaded it is true. There is at least a strand in Calvinist thought that holds that "charity" is wrong as it encourages the indolence of the poor. This thought also takes on Social Darwinist aspects in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Whatever the better view, I contend that it is a weakness of traditional D&D alignment that, _if those at the table have different view on such matters_ then the game cannot proceed smoothly.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It's hard to make a claim that isn't controversial, but I'm prepared to defend them.



But agreement on controversial matters of history, politics, sociology and morality should not be a necessary condition of smooth gameplay. It is disruptive and adds nothing.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think primarily, the traditional D&D alignment system makes no argument about which moral philosophy is the 'right' one.



There is at least a mild implication that Good is good and Evil evil. More seriously, however, it presupposes that certain matters are true which are in fact controversial (eg that law does not tend towards good) and is unable adequately to encompass certain fundamental political ideals (like the Rule of Law and constitutionalism).



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It is merely suggesting that for the purposes of fantasy, these are useful philosophical groupings



And I happen to think that the 4e system, from what I understand of it, is more useful for the purposes of heroic fantasy, as (as far as I can tell) it does not purport to offer a total framework for all moral thought. It hives off a few categories of outlook that the genre itself defines, and leaves everyone else in the "unaligned" basket.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> there is nothing within the D&D system which suggests that the adherents of the various philosophies with in the game universe admit the truth of say 'Nuetral Good' as the highest good if they themselves believe something different.  Perhaps it could be that real goodness as you define it is found by embracing the tenents of law and evil, and not the one conventionally labeled 'good' at all.



This notion of Good as purely inverted-commas good runs into its own problems in the semantics of moral argument and moral disagreement, but I'm not sure that this thread is the place for it.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It is obviously true to me that the particulars of the US culture and government are extremely particular.  In fact, I dare say that I believe them to be more particular than you do unless you are a particularly 'extremist' sort of person yourself.



I wouldn't know. I'm an academic lawyer and philosopher who teaches (among other things) social theory. D&D's alignment system is of no use, as far as I can see, for understanding any actual system of moral or political thought that humans have created and acted upon, nor for understanding any actual moral or political conflict or transition that humans have experienced. It can't even tell me whether one of the greatest theorists of US political ideals, John Rawls, is Lawful (because he believes in order and an important role for government) or Chaotic (because he believes in individual rights).



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> But it is not at all obviously true to me that any argument I'm making depends on these particulars, and I've repeatedly made reference to other systems and cultures separated from modern America in both time and space.



I don't think I asserted that it does. I do think your arguments rest on controversial premises. And I do think that a game should not depend, for its playability, upon these beliefs being shared by the participants.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Even to the extent that I agree with you, I don't see how that follows from what you've said.  More ancient systems are actually typically easier to classify than more recent ones by the virtue of the fact that they are generally much simplier, much less internally diverse, much smaller, and so forth.



I think that the endless disputes over the 1st DDG classification of pre-modern religious sytems, or the endless debates about Aztecs, are a sufficient refutation of this. Also, I don't know if you've read Inga Clendinnen's well-regarded book on the Aztecs, or Mary Midgley's writings on cultural relativism and morality, or Bernard Williams on the "relativism of distance", but the lesson I draw from these sorts of writings is that understanding and classifying cuturally and historically diverse forms of life is actually quite difficult.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 21, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Limitations on the character's actual _moral code_, imposed by a strict alignment system, in a *Role Playing Game*, have always been hard for me to swallow.
> There are a literally infinite number of ways to restrict PC powers without modifying their own independent thought processes.




After having read the small article on roleplaying XP awards, I begin to believe that role playing was originally a lot more ... constrained by D&D or Gary Gygax then we see it now.
A Fighter not only fights, he is there to defend his comrades and lead them in combat. Clerics heals and act according to their gods teachings. Lawful Good characters never lie and fight evil. The "wishy-washy" middle ground like "I am playing a cool swashbuckler wearing light armor and a rapier, but I am a reluctant hero who is not sure if he really wants to fight evil" was not on the agenda. Combat roles were defined by your class, your personality was defined by your alignment. Good roleplaying meant doing exactly what your alignment and your class defined, nothing more fancy. 

That's not exactly how we do it today, though it can be refreshing and helping to still do it from time to time... But a "True Roleplayer"/"Thespian" might sneer at such a simply structure  (and, off course, forgetting his origins)...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> After having read the small article on roleplaying XP awards, I begin to believe that role playing was originally a lot more ... constrained by D&D or Gary Gygax then we see it now.
> A Fighter not only fights, he is there to defend his comrades and lead them in combat. Clerics heals and act according to their gods teachings. Lawful Good characters never lie and fight evil. The "wishy-washy" middle ground like "I am playing a cool swashbuckler wearing light armor and a rapier, but I am a reluctant hero who is not sure if he really wants to fight evil" was not on the agenda. Combat roles were defined by your class, your personality was defined by your alignment. Good roleplaying meant doing exactly what your alignment and your class defined, nothing more fancy.
> 
> That's not exactly how we do it today, though it can be refreshing and helping to still do it from time to time... But a "True Roleplayer"/"Thespian" might sneer at such a simply structure  (and, off course, forgetting his origins)...




Well, roleplaying XP is a hard one to go by, since literally every single group in existance had its own way of doling that out.

I think one of the conflicts there is between class identity and character identity.  For the swashbuckler example, a class that emphasises high dexterity, intellect, and charisma doesn't lend itself well to a reluctant hero type.  I'm not saying it's not doable, but it's stretchy.  Now, if the reluctant hero type in question was more "I perfer NOT to be in damp, miserable caves where one stupid rock can fall and kill us, I perfer being at my nice home surrounded by women," rather then the somewhat stock "I am Villager #827, and I apparently have to go save the world," then that's definately swashbuckler material ;p

Side note - my spelling is seriously plummeting as it gets later (or earlier, if you want) in the night (or morning)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Well, roleplaying XP is a hard one to go by, since literally every single group in existance had its own way of doling that out.



It was an excerpt from an actual rulebook on the topic, that's why I thought it might give us some more insight in the "thought processes" of EGG and his original intentions or understanding. 



> I think one of the conflicts there is between class identity and character identity.  For the swashbuckler example, a class that emphasises high dexterity, intellect, and charisma doesn't lend itself well to a reluctant hero type.  I'm not saying it's not doable, but it's stretchy.  Now, if the reluctant hero type in question was more "I perfer NOT to be in damp, miserable caves where one stupid rock can fall and kill us, I perfer being at my nice home surrounded by women," rather then the somewhat stock "I am Villager #827, and I apparently have to go save the world," then that's definately swashbuckler material ;p



You can take this as two examples, if you prefer. A Fighter trying to be a Swashbuckler, and a Lawful Good character trying to play the reluctant hero (well, if anyone would actually try this with Lawful Good, I think my description might have been unsatisfying.)



> Side note - my spelling is seriously plummeting as it gets later (or earlier, if you want) in the night (or morning)



I have the feeling mine is getting worse with every day and every message I post... A continual decline. It won't take long, and I will write in l33t and similar net-speak abominations of language!


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Nobody's limiting the character's moral code.  The character is allowed to feel and act however they so desire, and they can change this however many times they desire.
> Consequently, their god is equally allowed to say "We used to be cool, now you're a *bad word*.  I warned you.  Now say goodbye to your powers."



All right, so you think that alignment under the old system doesn't prescribe a moral code.  You also believe that alignment exists in order to enable gods and other people to determine how they should react to any given follower/person.
Of course, people have no way of knowing the alignment of others, as perception is flawed.  So it's only gods...and gods will probably only care about the followers that they give power, in PC terms generally only Clerics and Paladins.
So, with the premise that alignment is a fundamental part of a person, it serves only to address whether or not Clerics and Paladins should be god-smacked.  And therefore, it's prescriptive of behavior if not actual morality; if Clerics and Paladins don't act in this way, they stop being paladins.
This doesn't seem useful, but I don't think it's your point.

I think what you're actually saying is that alignment is fluid, based on any given action rather than being a fundamental part of a person.
I respect that...but it seems to conflict with the idea of writing down an alignment in the first place.  The DM will just be determining whether any given action taken is Chaotic, Good, whatever anyway.

I think the alignment statistic should be descriptive, defining how someone will actually act; if they aren't set in their moral code, there should be an option such as Unaligned, and there is in 4E fortunately.


----------



## Celebrim (May 21, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This doesn't answer the question - is constitutionalism a chaotic or a lawful value?




Allow me to begin the answer to that question with a question, "Is courage a chaotic or a lawful virtue?  Is it a virtue of evil or good?"  Various fantasy writers have claimed in a weak way that it was a virtue pertaining to good.  But no fantasy writer has claimed that it is a virtue wholly pertaining to good or evil or law or chaos or however they split the system.

Am I to conclude that because courage cannot be described as morally good or morally evil, that this failure to adequately describe a key virtue means that the concepts of good and evil have no moral or ethical value?



> My own view is that this question has no answer - that constitutionalism (one of the most important of modern political ideals) cannot be adequately described within the D&D framework.




I would tend to agree that the question has no answer, but not for the reason you assert.  The codification of ideas into formal social structures is weakly lawful in as much as it encourages the rule of law, but that value is I think utterly overwhelmed by the ethical value of the ideas that those laws represent.  In other words, a law is just an idea.  A constitution is ultimately just some of those ideas written down.  Ideas themselves are  lawful compared to irrationality just as a universe by its mere existance is more lawful than a chaotic soup without physical laws, but we would not expect to be able to say that because something is an idea that lies wholly on the lawful end of the spectrum.  Likewise, just because in theory a Constitution creates rule of law (assuming that it is a document that isn't merely for show and breached more than honored), doesn't mean that the social order it creates is on the more lawful end of the specturm.



> And, given that it is an express feature of the US system of government to avoid rule by the mob (hence, for example, the presidential electoral college) does it therefore follow that the US system of government is lawful?




No, it follows that it is a system of comprimises.  Everyone that has taken as much as high school civics knows that.  Comprimises are weakly chaotic in as much as the idea of a comprimise is that there isn't one perfect truth that must be absolutely upheld, but given that we both agree that the comprimises of the US constitution are between mob rule and aristocratic rule, between democratic idealism and fear of the public, I would say that what you have is a system which is in that aspect somewhat 'nuetral'.



> In which case every post-enlightenment system of government is chaotic, as they all have methods whereby the law can be lawfully ammended.




The English/American value system is rather widespread at this point, yes.



> Again, I point out that this claim depends upon assuming (without argument, as far as I can see) that Lon Fuller was wrong and Hart right.




It was offered without argument because the number of things that we are debating is exponentially expanding without any real pattern or approach except to find something however tangential to argue about.



> Furthermore, the National Socialist "legal system" had a wide range of methods of ammending its "laws" (indeed, this is part of what Fuller has in mind when he denies that it was not a system of law at all). Does this make it Chaotic rather than Lawful?




Ammending laws is weakly Chaotic.  I don't think you can answer where the Nazi State lies on the spectrum as a whole except by extensive analysis of its various features.   I don't think you can precisely answer it at all, because these things are by thier nature abstractions.  That's hardly surprising nor does it render the system valueless, as no other moral and ethical system however sophisticated classifies all actions in a way that finds universal agreement either.



> Fuller's point is not that Lawfulness is the best Good, as D&D sometimes seems to have it, but rather that Law of necessity tends towards Good, which D&D denies.




But someone who is Lawful Good within the D&D system would not deny it.  However, there Libertarian moral philosophers out there that believe law tends toward evil and that the is states use of force to impose order on the individual is inherently undesirable even if and when it is strictly necessary.  Should the D&D system take sides?



> And committed to the Rule of Law. Is that a lawful or a chaotic commitment?




Rule of law is lawful in as much as further out on the chaotic end of the continium you have things like anarchy where there are no laws at all, but we would have more to say on the matter if we knew what sort of law ruled.  Unless the law itself encodes a comparitively lawful mindset the system is complex.  There is a continuium between law and chaos.  Any real world system is likely to not lie on either end, and unless you believe that humanity has a strong prediliction toward either law or chaos (most assume humanity is nuetral) you would not expect a system on either extreme to last long.



> But if the correct conclusion, then, is that the Rule of Law is a Chaotic value, I rest my case that the D&D alignment system has been refuted as an adequate framework for moral description - in this case, the refutation is by reductio ad absurdum.




Well, sure.  But no one has argued that rule of law is a chaotic value.  I've merely suggested that in some cases the rule of law enshrines values which are on the whole more 'chaotic' in nature in the sense of believing in change, individual preference, diversity, and so forth than not.



> Again, this is a controversial claim about economic and social history. I'm not persuaded it is true. There is at least a strand in Calvinist thought that holds that "charity" is wrong as it encourages the indolence of the poor. This thought also takes on Social Darwinist aspects in the second half of the nineteenth century.




So you would say that at present Social Darwinism is mainstream Western thought?  Good luck, for example, running for President on those values.



> Whatever the better view, I contend that it is a weakness of traditional D&D alignment that, _if those at the table have different view on such matters_ then the game cannot proceed smoothly.




This is true of any ethical system.  The 'weakness' you describe would be enherent in any system that required we classify individuals, actions, and social systems.  One could well argue though, that since the conflict between good and evil is a principle feature of fantasy, that even if we avoid classifying things mechanically as being this or that, that conflict at the table of some sort is inevitable if the players conceptions of what constitutes good and evil differ significantly from the referees.  A referee/storytellers understanding of good and evil generally creates some expectation of how the players are going to respond to thier 'heroic' role in the story.  If the players understanding of good and evil is sufficiently different (or they feel more 'heroic' being something other than 'heroic' in the DMs mind), this is going to create friction.



> But agreement on controversial matters of history, politics, sociology and morality should not be a necessary condition of smooth gameplay. It is disruptive and adds nothing.




I'm not sure agreement on any given controversial matters of history, politics, sociology, and morality are strictly necessary conditions of this debate.  They have been brought in largely because they are presumed by the person who brought them in to be easier and more concrete arguments than the difficult and abstract question ('Does Chaotic Good really exist, can it really be differentiated from Nuetral Good?') that we would really like to answer.



> And I happen to think that the 4e system, from what I understand of it, is more useful for the purposes of heroic fantasy, as (as far as I can tell) it does not purport to offer a total framework for all moral thought. It hives off a few categories of outlook that the genre itself defines, and leaves everyone else in the "unaligned" basket.




This is precisely why I think it less useful for the purposes of heroic fantasy.  Not only does the new system not describe as interesting of a cosmology, but it doesn't seem to provide a coherent cosmology at all.  As someone else had said, it would have been better off with either no system or else with two alignments 'Things to kill' and 'Things not to kill'.

To a certain extent, the fact that the older system provokes arguments is a feature and not a bug.  Real world ethical systems invariably provoke lots of arguments too.  If the system isn't sophisticated enough to argue about, its not a very good system.



> I wouldn't know. I'm an academic lawyer and philosopher who teaches (among other things) social theory. D&D's alignment system is of no use, as far as I can see, for understanding any actual system of moral or political thought that humans have created and acted upon, nor for understanding any actual moral or political conflict or transition that humans have experienced.




If agreement without contriversy is a necessary condition for describing any actual sytem of moral or political thought that humans have created and acted upon, then no system so far devised is of any use for understanding any actual moral or political conflict.  



> It can't even tell me whether one of the greatest theorists of US political ideals, John Rawls, is Lawful (because he believes in order and an important role for government) or Chaotic (because he believes in individual rights).




No, but it can make you ask the question.  And despite all your protests, you seem quite capable of figuring out how the buckets are labeled.

Rawls, by the way, is Chaotic.  This can be seen in his movement away from the more lawful/collectivist minded political and legal theories that had arose from the Hegelian school of thought.  Legal positivism in general is 'chaotic' since it makes law a human construct rather than a universal absolute, and it generally denies that there is a single system of laws which can be rationally discovered.  There are however philosophers more chaotic (more 'liberal' if you will) in thier outlook than Rawls, so maybe he's all and all neutral on the axis.  



> I think that the endless disputes over the 1st DDG classification of pre-modern religious sytems, or the endless debates about Aztecs, are a sufficient refutation of this. Also, I don't know if you've read Inga Clendinnen's well-regarded book on the Aztecs, or Mary Midgley's writings on cultural relativism and morality, or Bernard Williams on the "relativism of distance", but the lesson I draw from these sorts of writings is that understanding and classifying cuturally and historically diverse forms of life is actually quite difficult.




I would agree.  I don't think this refutes my claim that modernity is more complicated than antiquity, nor do I think I have to believe that the people of antiquity were in any way simple minded to hold that.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (May 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You can take this as two examples, if you prefer. A Fighter trying to be a Swashbuckler, and a Lawful Good character trying to play the reluctant hero (well, if anyone would actually try this with Lawful Good, I think my description might have been unsatisfying.)



Easy Peasy.

Character serves in the Imperial Army for a few years, learning how to use a sword and fight the barbarians.  After the term of service, they return home, and being from a family of no small means, secures a place in the Senate.  After a year or two, the hidden corruption in the government is made manifest, as the outlier colonies rebel, the barbarians are at the gate, and the small kingdom is over-run.  Our PC fights their way through the streets, finds their family slaughtered by the orcs/goblins/whatever, and turns to deal with the rabble that has destroyed everything they held dear.  Nothing further binds them to this place, and even though our 1st level fighter never wanted to leave the city, nor do anything but serve the Lawful Good government by eventually leading the Senate, they are now forced to make their way in the larger world, and perhaps spreading the spark of justice that is left of his home to others who are in need of it.

A Paladin is a particular expression of 'Lawful Good', not everyone who is Lawful Good rides into town on a white charger, pearly teeth gleaming, flashing their sword and shouting "I am here to kick evil and chew bubblegum, and I am all out of bubblegum!"  That isn't even an accurate description of all Paladins.

I think the stumbling block is in trying to define 'law', 'chaos', 'good' and 'evil' as philosophical ideas within the D&D structure.  In fact, they are _entirely real forces_.  Every bit as much as electricity is for modern people.  There is still quite a bit of leeway, but 'law' is not some philosophical construct for farmers to discuss at the pub after a hard day in the fields.  It is a living force that informs a part of the universe.  A force that is marshaled by certain deities, and enforced through their mortal agents by investing them with a portion of deific power.  How that particular power is defined at any given table is something for that group to discuss.  It adds an extra dimension to the characters and the game that is lacking because, seemingly, the designers didn't want to think too hard about fantasy.

I agree with the Professor.  Alignment is an extremely useful guide for character creation and expression.  The game is poorer without it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> All right, so you think that alignment under the old system doesn't prescribe a moral code.  You also believe that alignment exists in order to enable gods and other people to determine how they should react to any given follower/person.




No, I'm saying it's _both_.  It's a moral code that exists as a representation of how your character acts.  I've always said that the player decides the alignment, not the other way around.  The gods literally see your alignment because 1) magic is involved, and 2) Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, as the poster above stated, these aren't just philisophical terms.  "Law" is a very literal power in the world, just as real as UV rays.  You don't SEE the law in someone, but it's there.  That's why gods that are lawful good have to act and only approve their followers acting in a lawful good manner; they're quite literally POWERED by the forces of "Law" and "Good."



> Of course, people have no way of knowing the alignment of others, as perception is flawed.  So it's only gods...and gods will probably only care about the followers that they give power, in PC terms generally only Clerics and Paladins.




Again, people don't literally SEE your alignment (until magic gets involved), but they can get glimpses of someone else's alignment in the way they act.  If you watch a paladin for awhile, you're going to figure out he's lawful good.  You might not USE the phrase "lawful good," but you hopefully get what I'm saying.



> So, with the premise that alignment is a fundamental part of a person, it serves only to address whether or not Clerics and Paladins should be god-smacked.  And therefore, it's prescriptive of behavior if not actual morality; if Clerics and Paladins don't act in this way, they stop being paladins.
> This doesn't seem useful, but I don't think it's your point.




For *most* classes, alignment is just a description on how you act.  It changes if you begin acting differently, such as a neutral thief who goes through something horrible and decides to mend his ways.  For *some* classes, the actual powers of Chaos, Law, Good, etc, work to empower them, either through the powers themselves, or by proxy through their god.  And lastly, some classes are expected to act a certain way, otherwise they no longer fit they type of class (which is why you don't get a lawful barbarian, because a lawful person wouldn't run around RAAAAGGGGIIIING at people; if they did, their alignment would change more chaotic).



> I think what you're actually saying is that alignment is fluid, based on any given action rather than being a fundamental part of a person.
> I respect that...but it seems to conflict with the idea of writing down an alignment in the first place.  The DM will just be determining whether any given action taken is Chaotic, Good, whatever anyway.




Oh, I dunno.  I wrote down my place of living when I got my ID how many years ago, but that's changed. 



> I think the alignment statistic should be descriptive, defining how someone will actually act; if they aren't set in their moral code, there should be an option such as Unaligned, and there is in 4E fortunately.




My problem with 4e alignment isn't Unaligned, which I think is really a GREAT addition.  My problem is that they cut of lot of stuff that was a neccesary part of how alignment worked, and they did it seemingly for no visible reason.  Furthermore, I have no issues with alignment being only a part of fluff now.  Again, my problem is that things like Lawful Evil were cut out with nothing to replace them.

The problem with saying "You can still be Lawful Evil, just take EVIL!" is that it doesn't answer the question of "why was this change made?"  Honestly, as much as people like to argue over chaotic good, I think lawful evil is the far better example, as it's STRONGLY unique amongst the other alignments.  I suppose the big issue is, there's no nothing that differentiates between Darth Vader or a lawyer and a gangbanger who does a drive-by.  Just _forcing less choices_ doesn't make a system less cumbersome by default, especially if the problem with the system was never "There's too many alignment choices."


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Well, you don't limit the PC on what they can POTENTIALLY do, no, but there needs to be some limitations, otherwise this wouldn't be a class or level based game, it would be a bunch of people with obscene super powers and the ability to do everything they want whenever they want running around having over the top dragonball Z fights.



I don't follow. Rolemaster is a class and level based game, but has no alignments. Many many people have played alignment-free D&D. Arcana Unearthed and OGL Conan are both alignment-free class and level based games.

It is possible to play a game in which PCs respond to moral imperatives without an alignment system. For example, moral evaluation and responsibility can be built into the gameworld (eg RQ, Pendragon) or it can be built into the character description (eg TRoS, HeroWars).



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> What I'm getting at is, a PC should be able to do anything, but not EVERYTHING.  Choices need consequences, otherwise they're empty, meaningless choices.  If you decide to take this class, you don't get the bonuses of the other class.  Or if you multiclass, you lose out on something else there, too.  So a player can, ideally, choose to be *anything!*  But he can't be _everything_.



But alignment is mostly irrelevant to the mechanical aspects of multi-classing, power availability etc.

You seem to suggest that it should be impossible for PCs to be both heroes and murderers. But we don't need an alignment system to achieve that result. The English language (less flippantly, some basic moral analysis) does the work for us.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> All right, so you think that alignment under the old system doesn't prescribe a moral code.  You also believe that alignment exists in order to enable gods and other people to determine how they should react to any given follower/person.
> Of course, people have no way of knowing the alignment of others, as perception is flawed.  So it's only gods...and gods will probably only care about the followers that they give power, in PC terms generally only Clerics and Paladins.
> So, with the premise that alignment is a fundamental part of a person, it serves only to address whether or not Clerics and Paladins should be god-smacked.  And therefore, it's prescriptive of behavior if not actual morality; if Clerics and Paladins don't act in this way, they stop being paladins.



You forgot the best bit: it is the GM who gets to decide what the gods think, so alignment rules immediately place players of Clerics and Paladins into an adversarial position with the GM if they differ in their moral opinions.

Other than that, a good post!



			
				Hambot said:
			
		

> Alignment - ruining your game, if you can't all agree on what the 9 boxes represent.



QFT.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I suppose the big issue is, there's no nothing that differentiates between Darth Vader or a lawyer and a gangbanger who does a drive-by.



Does this imply that Darth Vader is LE? I just ask, because on another of the current bundle of alignment threads a post confidently asserted that whereas the Emperor is LE, Darth is CE.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying it's _both_.  It's a moral code that exists as a representation of how your character acts.  I've always said that the player decides the alignment, not the other way around.



Moral codes aren't meant to change based on each action, however.  That's why they're codes.
I don't believe that if people actually have a moral code, they can act contrarily to it.  If they can, it wasn't really their moral code to begin with, just some set of ideals.



> Again, people don't literally SEE your alignment (until magic gets involved), but they can get glimpses of someone else's alignment in the way they act.  If you watch a paladin for awhile, you're going to figure out he's lawful good.  You might not USE the phrase "lawful good," but you hopefully get what I'm saying.



Can literal alignment be based on what others think your alignment is?  There seems to be no reason to write it down, then.
In 4E alignment seems to specifically define whether or not you fundamentally align with good and evil, and has no bearing on how any individual other perceives you.  They _can_ still perceive your alignment and act accordingly, as they could before, but they can't change your fundamental beliefs for you.



> For *most* classes, alignment is just a description on how you act.  It changes if you begin acting differently, such as a neutral thief who goes through something horrible and decides to mend his ways.  For *some* classes, the actual powers of Chaos, Law, Good, etc, work to empower them, either through the powers themselves, or by proxy through their god.  And lastly, some classes are expected to act a certain way, otherwise they no longer fit they type of class (which is why you don't get a lawful barbarian, because a lawful person wouldn't run around RAAAAGGGGIIIING at people; if they did, their alignment would change more chaotic).



When others are dictating your alignment (the DM, perhaps) in any given moment, you can't know what your own alignment actually is.  The only thing writing it down can do is remind you of how you supposedly want others to perceive you.  Which may be what you're aiming for, but in such case of representation I think the character's own personality is much more than his/her alignment, and perhaps in spite of it; thus, writing it down and having it stare you in the face is more likely to derail your expression of yourself in favor of conforming to two letters which really hold no depth of explanation.



> Oh, I dunno.  I wrote down my place of living when I got my ID how many years ago, but that's changed.



Yeah...I consider alignment more like your birth date.  Static.



> My problem with 4e alignment isn't Unaligned, which I think is really a GREAT addition.  My problem is that they cut of lot of stuff that was a neccesary part of how alignment worked, and they did it seemingly for no visible reason.  Furthermore, I have no issues with alignment being only a part of fluff now.  Again, my problem is that things like Lawful Evil were cut out with nothing to replace them.



I'd contend that you cannot be devoted to doing evil and following the law at the same time.
If you're more interested in upholding the law than anything else, and will do evil to accomplish that, I'd say you're Unaligned to the good/evil axis.  If you believe that by upholding the law you will promote the greatest good, perhaps you are in fact Lawful Good.
If you want the law/chaos axis back, I guess I can't help you.  I think that there are so many different kinds of Lawful and Chaotic, and being truly Lawful or Chaotic is so rare, that labeling yourself as either was and is meaningless, and is best served by allowing your actions to represent how you react to specific and different laws and codes.
I also don't believe that Law and Chaos can fight in a war devoid of morality...Good and Evil would always be defining the reasoning behind the war.
But I think that's been gone over.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2008)

Celebrim, for reasons both of time and board rules I'm not sure this discussion can go much further.

So just a few points to try and sum up my view:

*Despite your suggestion that I am being disingenuous, I cannot see why Rawls is Chaotic and not Lawful - he was a professor of government, and is most famous for his theory of just social institutions. He is extremely hostile to libertarianism and anarchism of all sorts. Likewise, your characterisation of post-Enlightenment law and government as chaotic because self-consciously mutable is mysterious to me - not in the sense that I can't see your reasons, but I can't see why one would not take account of the equally plausible reasons that might be put on the other side.

*More generally, I don't find the Law/Chaos axis very illuminating outside of certain fantastic cosmological conceits (eg Moorcock, Lovecraft) which have little bearing on the mundane problems of human politics and social organisation. Your post associates law with such disparate phenomena as concepts, law, government, and organisation. Others would include in the list tradition, honour, consistent behaviour. There is nothing particularly interesting or unitary about these phenomena taken together (again, unless one buys into a cosmological conceit of the Lovecraftian type - but notice that, in Lovecraft, no human activity except perhaps certain artistry is Chaotic - certainly no widespread form of human life is Chaotic in the relevant sense - whereas D&D requires us to apply the notion to mundane humanity).

*Good and Evil are also tricky, but frequently less so, especially in a fantasy context where certain real-life questions that tend to be the focus of actual contemporary moral debate (poverty, civilian deaths in warfare, undemocratic government) are bracketed off as genre-inapplicable. By the way, I don't know of any virtue theorist who denies that courage is a virtue (ie good in itself). Whether it is lawful or chaotic is not a question, as far as I know, that they address.

*I have nothing against a game that _raises_ moral questions. My objection to alignment in D&D is that it requires those questions to be answered if play is to progess. In practice this all too frequently leads to player-player or player-GM conflict. What is the point of spoiling the game like that?

*The less-than-total ambitions of the new system seem likely to reduce the need for these answers to be produced, because players can just take refuge in the "unaligned" category. Hence, an improvement from the point of view of gameplay.


----------



## smetzger (May 22, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Celebrim, for reasons both of time and board rules I'm not sure this discussion can go much further.
> 
> So just a few points to try and sum up my view:
> 
> ...




I agree completely.  I bet 4.5 goes to using G, N, and E.  Why did they only 'half' fix alignment?  Reminds me of 3.0 where every class lost weapon restrictions except for the Druid.


----------



## hong (May 22, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> I agree completely.  I bet 4.5 goes to using G, N, and E.  Why did they only 'half' fix alignment?  Reminds me of 3.0 where every class lost weapon restrictions except for the Druid.



 Change management. Gotta make sure you don't change too much, too quickly.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Alright, let's say it is guerrilla warfare.
> 
> But are you now going to say sniping out government officials is lawful?





95% of snipers are soldiers and police officers.  Granted, police officer snipers don't shoot government officials, but military ones do it in times of war.  Pretty much like Robin Hood did.  These guys aren't chaotic or the military system would have spat them out.

You have this mania of tagging alignmkent on actions with no concern for the context.  Which result in you tagging 'Chaotic' characters who are clearly fighting for order.



> And in other versions, he's just a bandit who also attacks the prince, who makes no differentials between stealing from the rich _or_ the poor.  So for your version where he is a knight errant in the woods, there's a version where he is just a bandit.




List those versions, please.



> Why, because it changes?  Don't be rediculous.




Robion Hood did what he did because his moral compass about what is right or wrong wouldn't change.

If his alignment changes before, during and after his rebellion, it cheapens his actions.  Robin Hood's tale is never one of redemption.

He fought John's order not because order is wrong but because John was Evil.  That's why he stopped fighting when richard took back the throne.  Which wouldn't make sense if he was CHAOTIC fighting LAWFUL but makes perfect sense if he is GOOD fighting EVIL.

If Robin was truly chaotic, he would have stayed in the wood after Richard returned.



> People do actions contrary to their "moral compass" all the time, MOST often without realizing it.




In D&D terms, these people are unaligned/neutral.  They are not doing actions contrary to their moral compass because truth is their internalized moral values are much weaker than what they express. 

Most people only truly feel moral wrongness at the thought of the more extreme for depravities such as incest, murder or rape.  It's easy to say you think tax evasion is harmful to the society, but noth that many people genuinely care.  Even D&D recognize that most people are neutral/unaligned and therefore hardly ever violate their alignment since there is so little of it to violate.





> So what tracks alignment if it's not actions?  Your entire argument seems set up around "Evil people can NEVER DO GOOD THINGS, NEVER, NEIN, CANNOT HAPPEN."




Never said that.  Said that one particular actions isn't indicative of a good alignment D&D terms.  Never said once that no action is.  

Take the mafia hitmen who protects his family.  If his employers turn on him and he tries to save his family, does it make him good?  No, it's just a biologic imperative.  

If he reaches out to the family of a man he killed, tries to earn their forgiveness and to protect them from his employer who wants to youngest child to die because he is a witness in the upcoming tria,.is he good?  Well, getting there.  Because this attempt at redemption indicate an alignment shifting.  Saving your family doesn't.  It's expected.



Concerning the Sons of Liberty thing...  I have no clue who they are and no interest in finding out which is why I didn't comment.


----------



## VannATLC (May 22, 2008)

Storm-bringer showed why I dislike alignment so intensely under the old system.

The old system would be.. ok.. at least, if it didn't rely on absolutism.

But it does.

The new system, at least, resolves some of that, by leaving 'good' and 'evil' as absolutes, apparently.

Pemerton and Celebrim.

Too much of your arguments (Between each other, not the arguments themselves.) are demonstrating that prior to any other differences, your concepts of Law and Chaos differ too significantly, and you have no baseline to make your arguments against each other.


----------



## Celebrim (May 22, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Celebrim, for reasons both of time and board rules I'm not sure this discussion can go much further.




Ok, I'll back down.

So just a few points to try and sum up my view:



> *Despite your suggestion that I am being disingenuous...




Did I use that word?  If I did, I apologize.  I certainly don't think you are being disingenuous.  If anyone is being disingenuous here, it's me - because ultimately _I_ don't believe 'law' and 'chaos' have real concrete and definitive meanings.  I think that while you could line up most concepts on the axis as either 'lawful', 'chaotic', and 'nuetral' that most real world people, systems, or societies are so complex and filled with so many contridictions that even that wouldn't tell you much.  It's just much more interesting to hold that lawful evil and chaotic good (or for that matter lawful good and chaotic evil) have a definite distinguishable character.  

However, that admission is not nearly the same as saying that I think the new system more interesting (or less problimatic) than the old division into nine groups.  I do think that 'law' and 'chaos' have enough of a definate character to make them useful story prompts or at least backdrops for those stories.



> *More generally, I don't find the Law/Chaos axis very illuminating outside of certain fantastic cosmological conceits (eg Moorcock, Lovecraft) which have little bearing on the mundane problems of human politics and social organisation.




Well, it is precisely within those great fantastic cosmological conciets that we are operating.  Moreover, if we use - as I have - the terms 'law' and 'chaos' as stand in for issues like collectivism vs. the rights of the individual, or natural law vs. positivism, or any other number of opposing belief systems which each seem to describe something real and relevant and which do seem to illumine human politics and social organization at least in part, then I do think we can use the Law/Chaos axis profitably to bring interesting questions into our game without upsetting the fantastic tropes and being unduly anachronistic.

And I also do not go so far as you in rejecting the modern relevance of the old cosmlogical conciets of mother cosmos and father chaos, and that great mythic consummation when infinite cold (stasis) met infinite heat (change) and birthed the universe in cataclysm.   



> By the way, I don't know of any virtue theorist who denies that courage is a virtue (ie good in itself).




Interesting, because I would claim that courage has no virtue of itself.  The only thing that makes courage a virtue is to be courageous in a good cause.  To be courageous in a bad cause only compounds the error.  Far better to shirk cowardly away from doing evil than to do it boldly and think that by your boldness you are somehow being good.



> *I have nothing against a game that _raises_ moral questions. My objection to alignment in D&D is that it requires those questions to be answered if play is to progess.




Bad DMing is just bad DMing.  In practice most players should play a neutral character.  Playing an aligned character is difficult, and deserves some leeway.  After all, mortals aren't perfect.  The biggest source of friction - the fact that changing alignments would cost you a level - is done away with, so what's the problem?



> The less-than-total ambitions of the new system seem likely to reduce the need for these answers to be produced, because players can just take refuge in the "unaligned" category. Hence, an improvement from the point of view of gameplay.




From a certain point of view, yes.  If questions and difficulties are to be avoided, then yes not having questions or answers is certainly an improvement.  Over the years I've taken a great deal of pleasure in thinking very deeply about what my characters believe to be true and then playing as if I had conviction - even if I myself didn't believe any of it.  This is a fantasy, so picking something up out of a box labeled 'Chaotic Neutral' or 'Lawful Good' is alot more interesting than picking something up labeled 'phenomenalism' (well, may _not_ to a professor of philosophy I grant you).  The new system just seems really dumbed down.

And the refuge of playing a character that isn't aligned has always been there if you wanted it.  Likewise, its easy to slap the label 'nuetral good' on your character and do little about it save jump through hero hoops.


----------



## VannATLC (May 22, 2008)

> Interesting, because I would claim that courage has no virtue of itself. The only thing that makes courage a virtue is to be courageous in a good cause. To be courageous in a bad cause only compounds the error. Far better to shirk cowardly away from doing evil than to do it boldly and think that by your boldness you are somehow being good.




How well-versed are you in Virtue ethics, Celebrim?

Courage is a virtue; Specifically, we generally define courage as doing something that we believe is correct regardless of the potential personal cost. 

I honestly cannot think of a case where that is not a good thing, independant of the action itself, but I have a very virtue-based view of the world.


----------



## keterys (May 22, 2008)

I've somehow ended two other threads with this post, may as well go for a third:

I suspect they only kept the difference so you could distinguish:
'Evil for no redeeming reason' and 'Good confined by rules' from the rest.

and

'On a plus note, since alignment doesn't actually affect anything, how the alignment works is sorta like the color of garnish on your plate. Maybe it makes it look better or not, but it doesn't actually change how you enjoy the meal.'

I otherwise reiterate Hong's second law. Carry on


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 22, 2008)

ZetaStriker said:
			
		

> I've always thought of Lawful Good as the jerkface samurai/knight who'll beat you for disrespecting them. I can't help but view the alignment as just as bad as Lawful Evil. XD



That would be Lawful Neutral, Blind following of the laws of bushido, with no possible exception.


----------



## Celebrim (May 22, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> How well-versed are you in Virtue ethics, Celebrim?




Compared to Pemerton?  Probably not very well.



> Courage is a virtue; Specifically, we generally define courage as doing something that we believe is correct regardless of the potential personal cost.




I know how it is commonly defined.  Doing something courageously is of no credit to you if the thing you believe to be correct is not in fact correct.  There is no reason to celebrate boldly doing evil.  Self-sacrifice is not inherently virtuous either.  People have great value.  If you sacrifice yourself for a wicked cause, not only have you perpetrated a great wickedness, but you've deprived the world of yourself.  Only sacrificing for a good cause is virtuous.



> I honestly cannot think of a case where that is not a good thing, independant of the action itself, but I have a very virtue-based view of the world.




A great deal of evil has been done with great courage.  I have a hard time imagining you can't think of cases were it would have been better were a people less brave and less willing to put themselves at great personal risk.  That evil was done with great courage did not make it less evil.  

Courage to do good is a good thing.  Courage to do evil is not.  To admire courage as a thing in and of itself would render some of the most despicable of people admirable.  Courage makes the list of attributes of the worst sorts of sociopathy.

I'm reminded of the often misattributed and sometimes bantered slogan, "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism."  That phrase contains the same sort of mistake.  Just because it sometimes takes courage to dissent doesn't render dissent a virtue.  Whether dissent is a virtue or a vice depends on whether you are advocating right or dissenting from right.

I think before you can claim something as a virtue it must by its nature distinguish the virtuous from the depraved.  There is nothing wrong with having a virtue based view of the world, but I do think the trick is discerning what is truly virtuous from the merely celebrated.


----------



## VannATLC (May 22, 2008)

They *are* admirable.

Just not as good people.

Anytime somebody bucks the weight of social convention to do something they believe is necessary and correct, it is admirable. They don't have to be right. This ties into the issue of determining 'evil' and 'good', and hence basing value judgments on actions/intentions. You can only do it subjectively, and our minds run out of comprehension space after certain temporal factors.

Doesn't mean I won't shoot them if I think it is ultimately harmful.

Everything in your post smacks of absolutism, and that's ultimately something I cannot consciously argue with, because it, to me, is self-evidently false, and highly dependant on an external, stand-alone entity.

If you have somebody who is unable to comprehend the medium-term consqeuences of their actions, or is unable to predict the potential actions of those otherwise affected by their initial actions.. what are they?

They act in the moment, without regard to consequences. Are they good or evil? Who determines?

Courage is a virtue, and is independant to other virtues.
A collection of virtues is established to create behaviour that the originator of the system has decided is 'good'. Working towards those virtues is 'good' Never bad.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2008)

Celebrim, just a quick one about the discussion. I'll make another post to answer some gameplay points.

No need to back down in any strong sense - my reference to the board rules was just because it is hard to discuss some of the historical and contemporary examples (imperialism, Rawls, etc) without breaking the no politics/no religion rule. I'm not suggesting that you've done anything improper.

Also I have to write a couple of papers for work (one on the relationship between law and responsibility for wrongdoing) which means I don't have time to write the same stuff for the ENworld forums.

And on the disingenousness, you didn't use that word but I took you to be implying it - but no apology is required. I thought it was a legitimate attack upon what one (and I thought you, but wrongly) may have taken to be my argumentative strategy. I just wanted to make it clear that I genuinely don't see how you are distinguishing law and chaos - that is, although I do see the force of the reasons you adduce for drawing the distinction in a particular way I don't see how you have rebutted what strike me as equally salient reasons for drawing it in a different way. Unfortunately, as I've said, for both time and board rules reasons I don't think I can pursue it.



			
				VannATLC said:
			
		

> Pemerton and Celebrim.
> 
> Too much of your arguments (Between each other, not the arguments themselves.) are demonstrating that prior to any other differences, your concepts of Law and Chaos differ too significantly, and you have no baseline to make your arguments against each other.



I don't really agree with this. I think that we disagree. I also think that Celebrim's concept of Law/Chaos is not really coherent or defensible, but he (obviously and naturally) thinks that it is, at least to a degree. Conversely, I imagine that he thinks that my attacks upon the coherence of his notions fail - naturally and obviously, I think that they succeed.

Disagreement isn't a shocking thing. At least for me, it's a stock-in-trade of my job.

But I do think that it is not helpful for a game to almost go out of its way to turn these disagreements into an obstacle to successful and fun play. Thus, at a somewhat meta-level, I think that it counts as a good reason to drop the "total" model of alignment that it can engender this degree of disagreement over its classificatory capacity (and that is even before we actually turn to classificatory questions about particular actions or particular individuals).


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2008)

On the virtue ethics thing:

I don't think Celebrim's position is especially absolutist. It's just not virtue theory. Similarly, Raz argues that autonomy is valuable only if used to pursue valuable things, whereas many others think that autonomy is a good in itself.

I'm personally not that sympathetic to virtue theory - I think it tends to replace moral evaluation with aesthetic evaluation (the courageous soldier is admirable, perhaps, but frequently not moral).

But in the context of this thread isn't the real point this: D&D should be written so that a utilitarian and a virtue theorist and a Platonist and a Kantian and a libertarian and . . .  can all sit down and play together _without having to set aside their differences in order for the game to get started_.

This doesn't mean not raising moral questions in play. It does mean not requiring those questions to be answered as a necessary condition of play getting going.


----------



## VannATLC (May 22, 2008)

> The courageous soldier is admirable, perhaps, but frequently not moral.




Can't help myself. 

I'm not sure a soldier is a good example of what I would (As above) define as courageous. They could be, yes. But I've no overt need to get into a virtue-comparison-discussion


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In practice most players should play a neutral character.  Playing an aligned character is difficult, and deserves some leeway.  After all, mortals aren't perfect.  The biggest source of friction - the fact that changing alignments would cost you a level - is done away with, so what's the problem?[



I'll answer the question first, then come back to the more interesting point.

The common problems are three:

1) If your alignment changes it can debar you from a class (cleric, paladin, druid, bard, barbarian, monk) for no very good reason but that you and the GM disagree on some moral matter. This just seems unnecessary and unhelpful. Paladins aren't actually a broken class if allowed to fall short of the GM's ideal of the code, so it doesn't do any harm to game balance to allow the issue of wrongdoing, falling and so on to be actually worked out in the course of play (eg the paladin's NPC comrades start shunning him, the druid finds that the trees no longer welcome her, etc). This can be done without mechanically purging the character - which, in D&D, just sucks for the player.

2) As a sort of generalised version of the above, some GMs only allow good PCs (or at least disallow evil PCs). This means that alignment change can cut one out of the game.

Now, if there are real "social contract" issues - eg one player wants to roleplay a violent murderer of human civilians and the GM and other players don't - then those have to be resolved. But the alignment rules don't help with this. If anything, they exacerbate it, by concealing the real social contract conflict and presenting it under the cloak of a game mechanical problem.

3) Following on somewhat from number 2), there is something quite insulting about being told by others that one's convictions are evil, if one thinks them good. The argument is sometimes put that "good" in D&D doesn't really mean good, and that "evil" doesn't really mean evil - that they are simply mechanical labels with no meaning outside the game - but this contention is wrong (IMO) for at least 2 reasons: (i) many GMs forbid evil PCs, because they don't want to GM for players whose PCs indulge in wickedness, and this only makes sense if "evil" means something in the neighbourhood of evil; (ii) that demons, orcs etc are of evil alignment is meant to justify PCs fighting and killing them, and this justification only works if "evil" means something in the neighbourhood of evil.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> And the refuge of playing a character that isn't aligned has always been there if you wanted it.



I may be wrong about 4e, but I see this as something new, and different from playing a Neutral character. The difference is this: a Neutral character is always in danger of being relabelled by the GM, with all the consequences attendant on that that I've set out above. Whereas, if my understanding is right, an Unaligned character is never in danger of being reballed unless s/he actively seeks out an affilation with Good or Evil.

Now, maybe I'm wrong in my guestimation of the 4e mechanics. If so, then it doesn't achieve the improvements I've been spruiking on its behalf.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> If questions and difficulties are to be avoided, then yes not having questions or answers is certainly an improvement.  Over the years I've taken a great deal of pleasure in thinking very deeply about what my characters believe to be true and then playing as if I had conviction - even if I myself didn't believe any of it.  This is a fantasy, so picking something up out of a box labeled 'Chaotic Neutral' or 'Lawful Good' is alot more interesting than picking something up labeled 'phenomenalism' (well, may _not_ to a professor of philosophy I grant you).



In my Greyhawk game I did work out a roughly phenomenalist metaphysics for some of the clergy of Pholtus - but that was many years ago when I was an undergraduate with too much time on his hands.

More pertinently, I have nothing against the game raising moral questions. I just want the players and GM to be free to answer them - and perhaps disagree about them - in the course of play.

Some examples of what I mean:

One memorable character I've GMed was a RM sorcerer who was a freed slave, morally and politically committed, but also weak of will and prone to indebtedness (in part through drug addiction, to a herb that would help him regain power points more quickly). In the end he changed allegiances from the government of his own (free) city to the imperial power because they promised him a magistracy. He rationalised this as (in part) a chance to take power and use it to do good.

The character generated a lot of commentary from other players in the game, and obviously playing out the adventures that all this happened in required us to address moral questions. I don't see that D&D alignment rules could have added anything to that endeavour however, and indeed would have got in the way, by forcing a simple label to be put upon a very morally complex individual.

In the same game, that character's friend ended up betraying one of his party members who then got sacrificed on an evil god's altar (at the metagame level, the two players were in agreement that the player of the sacrificed character wanted to introduce a new PC with a different class). Traditional D&D forces me to label that character Evil, I think - but the label adds nothing of interest to the moral issue, and would not have contributed to the very interesting play that resulted.

My current RM game involves two Samurai, a Pure Land Sect Warrior Monk and a more mystical Shingon-type Mind Monk (all probably Lawful in D&D terms), plus another quasi-Samurai warrior mage (probably N or NE in D&D terms), a tree spirit druid (proably N or NG in D&D terms) and a fox spirit archer/enchanter (maybe CN in D&D terms?) working together, in defiance of the will of Heaven and the Lords of Karma (who are also all probably Lawful in D&D terms), to help free a dead god who is trapped in the (Far Realms-style) Void (which is probably Chaotic in D&D terms). Labelling this as law vs chaos doesn't, to me, add very much. The two monks are very different from one another in outlook and motivation, and the samurai different again. And their defiance of Heaven and Karma - presumably, in D&D terms, non-Lawful behaviour, is crucial to the story but does nothing to bring them into any sort of allegiance with the Void. The Mind Monk (who I imagine is strongly LN in D&D terms?) is the most obviously tempted by the "Super-Enlightenment" on offer from the voidal entities - its something too esoteric for the others to really get at - and yet in D&D that would probably require me to say that a LN character is the most tempted by a CN/CE realm, which would make no sense.

These are the play experiences I've had which make me feel that alignment doesn't help the game, and gets in the way of rather than facilitates the exploration of moral philosophy by way of roleplaying.

I'm not saying that the 4e system would necessarily help this sort of play. But I think it is less likely to get in the way of it, because (if I am right in my understanding of it) it does not purport to make alignment a total system.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> I agree completely.  I bet 4.5 goes to using G, N, and E.  Why did they only 'half' fix alignment?  Reminds me of 3.0 where every class lost weapon restrictions except for the Druid.





			
				hong said:
			
		

> Change management. Gotta make sure you don't change too much, too quickly.



An alternative hypothesis: it adds something to a high fantasy game to distinguish Round Table or Seven Samurai good guys (ie those bound by a code of honour) from ordinary good guys; and it adds something to the game to distinguish cosmological or utterly mindless evil (ie demons, orcs etc) from mere garden variety villainy (eg Prince John).



			
				keterys said:
			
		

> I suspect they only kept the difference so you could distinguish:
> 'Evil for no redeeming reason' and 'Good confined by rules' from the rest.



Exactly.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The new system just seems really dumbed down.



Whereas to me it just seems more genre-appropriate.


----------



## Talislan (May 22, 2008)

This whole thread has me hoping that they make sure they define the meaning of Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, Evil and Good within the realms of the rules more distinctly. Cutting down the options may be the only way they can do this in a clear and concise manner, without clogging up the rule system for the rest of the game.

To me the line between good and evil is none existant except in the mind of the individual. It is a concept of belief which can never be anything other than personal. Just as this statement is just one personal view. There is no right or wrong to it except in my own minds eye.

In a game though we need to be able define who are the 'good' guys and who are the 'bad'. Or more correctly, who is on your side and who is the opposition. The simpler you can make this the easier the game will flow. If this creates restrictions in what is possible then so be it. Those are the boundaries of the fantasy setting. Those restriction are one of the many elements that makes the setting and 'ordered' fantasy that everyone can play in.

The Lawful/Chaotic alignment creates a more in depth experience of the roleplaying experience only. Neither sit well with the concept of good and evil because they have more concrete definitions. One is bound by a set of rules the other is bound by no rules. Whilst they can sit on either side of the good and evil fence quite comfortably, they require a ruling of there own to define who's side they are on. But in applying a simple rule to them (and effectively putting them on one side of the fence or the other) you can use them to create a set of rules for the boundaries of good and evil in the fantasy setting. Technically you could use either to pin down each end of the imaginary good and evil spectrum, but since we need rules to follow game it makes sense that the 'good' guys follow the rules of the fantasy defining what is good and chaos pins down the 'evil' that would unravel the very fabric of the fantasy world (in fantasy theory) we are playing in.

In this way we are able to have imaginary rules for what is good and what is bad that everyone can work with, within the context of the fantasy. The simpler this definition of rules can be, the more easily the fantasy can be constructed through the rules of the game to suit the broadest number of potential players.

The beauty of a simplfied alignment system though, is that those who wish to add to its complexity in their game can do so without the system braking the game for other potential players less concerned with knowing any more than which side they want to be on.


I'm sure there are plenty of holes in my statements, feel free to pick as they are just as always imho only.  

T.

PS. Neutrals - the balance between good & evil making them the keepers of the greater good or plain evil fence sitters?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 23, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> 95% of snipers are soldiers and police officers.  Granted, police officer snipers don't shoot government officials, but military ones do it in times of war.  Pretty much like Robin Hood did.  These guys aren't chaotic or the military system would have spat them out.
> 
> You have this mania of tagging alignmkent on actions with no concern for the context.  Which result in you tagging 'Chaotic' characters who are clearly fighting for order.




Sorry, but the archons are all chaotic evil while staying strongly militaristic.  That doesn't work.



> List those versions, please.




The early 16th century ones frequently had Robin Hood and his men robbing just about ANYONE, and then murdering innocent civilians so they couldn't tell the Sheriff where they were hiding.



> Robion Hood did what he did because his moral compass about what is right or wrong wouldn't change.
> 
> If his alignment changes before, during and after his rebellion, it cheapens his actions.  Robin Hood's tale is never one of redemption.
> 
> ...




I'm agreeing that, in most versions, Robin Hood was good.  But he changes in the end from chaotic to neutral.

I'd disagree strongly with your second statement.  If anything, if his alignment DIDN'T change it would cheapen his actions.  Who wants to read a story with no conflict?  Instead, because Robin Hood's alignment changes, he decides to leave the forest and go back into greater society.



> In D&D terms, these people are unaligned/neutral.  They are not doing actions contrary to their moral compass because truth is their internalized moral values are much weaker than what they express.




No, it's people _being human_.  Lawful Good doesn't mean ALWAYS LAWFUL, ALWAYS GOOD, ALL THE TIME.  As the quote goes, "You're human; chances are, you're going to screw up.  That's what the Redemption spell is FOR."



> Most people only truly feel moral wrongness at the thought of the more extreme for depravities such as incest, murder or rape.  It's easy to say you think tax evasion is harmful to the society, but noth that many people genuinely care.  Even D&D recognize that most people are neutral/unaligned and therefore hardly ever violate their alignment since there is so little of it to violate.




Yes, most people are generally unaligned, but that doesn't mean nobody ever screws up.



> Never said that.  Said that one particular actions isn't indicative of a good alignment D&D terms.  Never said once that no action is.
> 
> Take the mafia hitmen who protects his family.  If his employers turn on him and he tries to save his family, does it make him good?  No, it's just a biologic imperative.




Who says biological imperative isn't good?  Besides, LOTS of people leave their families for their own selfish desires _all the time_.  It's obviously not *that* strong of a biological imperative.



> If he reaches out to the family of a man he killed, tries to earn their forgiveness and to protect them from his employer who wants to youngest child to die because he is a witness in the upcoming tria,.is he good?  Well, getting there.  Because this attempt at redemption indicate an alignment shifting.  Saving your family doesn't.  It's expected.




Saving your family isn't expected, because it's an inherently altruistic act.  You are putting your life on the line for someone that will not benefit you.  That's the very definition of altruistic.



> Concerning the Sons of Liberty thing...  I have no clue who they are and no interest in finding out which is why I didn't comment.




They were the terrorist group made up of who would later be the founding fathers of America


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'm agreeing that, in most versions, Robin Hood was good.  But he changes in the end from chaotic to neutral.
> 
> I'd disagree strongly with your second statement.  If anything, if his alignment DIDN'T change it would cheapen his actions.  Who wants to read a story with no conflict?  Instead, because Robin Hood's alignment changes, he decides to leave the forest and go back into greater society.




Is it that he changed alignment, or that he was never CG to begin with?  4E simply assumes that latter.


----------

