PDA

View Full Version : Alignment: 'Chaotic' vs. 'Evil'.



pendell
2009-05-01, 06:31 AM
Guys,

I've been reading this board for awhile, and something I'm confused over is the difference between 'chaotic' behavior and 'evil' behavior.

See, that's a focus of a lot of the alignment debates. A character lies, and it's not evil behavior, but chaotic behavior. A character kills another character (V disintegrating Kubota) for example, and that's 'chaotic' rather than 'evil' behavior.

When exactly is chaotic behavior different from evil behavior? In the real world, it's considered wrong, downright evil to lie to people. We get all kinds of scam in our e-mail box for, e.g., the Nigerian bank game, or ' make money fast' or whatever, and we never think of the perpetrators as chaotic. Lies, in the real world, are intended to make people behave in a way they wouldn't if they knew the facts ... otherwise, why not just tell the truth?

Same with stealing. In the real world, all cultures condemn and punish stealing as evil, and anyone who's had their identity stolen online knows why this is. Yet in D&D, it's 'chaotic', not 'evil'.

So you can see my perplexity. Can anyone clear this up?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Prime32
2009-05-01, 06:36 AM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment

Gnorman
2009-05-01, 06:45 AM
Arguably, Kubota's disintegration is both chaotic and evil. V's motivation wasn't "Oh this is an evil man therefore he deserves death so he cannot harm anyone anymore," it was "Oh man this trial is gonna take forever so... Disintegrate. Gust of Wind."

Serving that kind of personal whim is what makes it chaotic. Killing an enemy who has surrendered himself might also be considered a chaotic act, since the lawful (read: honorable) thing to do here would be to put him on trial. But lawful doesn't necessarily mean law-abiding. The two are often correlated, but there are lawful characters who don't blindly obey every law on the books.

I don't know...

Evil acts are, to me, those which harm other people. Especially innocents. There are occasional mitigating factors, necessary evils, but to me killing something is never a "good" act - the only exceptions really being nonintelligent undead and evil outsiders. Everything else is capable of seeking redemption or can be dealt with non-lethally (hell, even succubi can become paladins...).

Chaotic acts? Personal whims. Unpredictability. Mutability. Mercurial nature. Capriciousness. Someone who changes their mind often would be chaotic. Hypocritical acts could be chaotic. Pathological lying. A harmless lie is chaotic by nature. Hell, a lie to spare someone's feelings might even be chaotic good. Dunno. Interpretation varies wildly.

kamikasei
2009-05-01, 06:58 AM
In the real world, societies enact laws with the supposed justification that they encode the good way to behave and punish evil acts. Even in the real world, though, there are obvious examples of laws which were not good or were even evil. How much more so in a world of objectively discernable black-and-white morality?

You could argue, like Socrates, that it is inherently good to obey laws and evil to break them, but that's the argument of a highly lawful ethicist. :smallwink:

Evil in D&D has to do with harm. It is chaotic to lie to someone because it's against the social rules which say you deal honestly with others, but it may not harm them and may even help them or others. It is chaotic to steal because it's breaking the law and social norms, and it may very well be evil in many or most cases, but the archetype of the "good bandit" who robs from those who gained their wealth by evil means (or uses it to evil ends) to give to the needy and virtuous is common.

For any action you see called chaotic, it may also be evil if it causes unnecessary harm. But if it's evil to break any rule or law, then why do we have two alignment axes?

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-01, 07:02 AM
There's a lot of confusion about it, but dishonorable, deceitful, arbitrary, etc. actions aren't actually Chaotic in themselves; they're not necessarily aligned at all, depending on their context.

Chaotic simply means "individual before group". Lawful means the opposite - "group before individual". Both alignments can cover a huge variety of behaviors and personality traits, many - or most - of which can fit in both. The "individual" in Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean "me", either - you can be Chaotic and very selfless. It's just that a Chaotic character is less willing to compromise or sacrifice an individual for the greater good, and the like.

This is why classic (say, in FR) drow society is chaotic despite being strictly ordered and hierarchical - everyone is out for the individual, i.e. themselves (being that it's a CE society).

Fixer
2009-05-01, 07:02 AM
(For the sake of argument, I will be using the male pronouns for V.)

V's reasons for disintegrating the man was because of expedience. He had a mission of his own to perform and did not want delays. He acted for his own personal desires instead of considering the law, or even the possibility he might be wrong, or that there were other circumstances involved (charm, domination, etc). V's decision was based on personal agenda, as opposed to public good or respect for due process. Now, whether or not this was completely chaotic isn't clear either. If V did what he did because he wanted to move things along for his own agenda, then V behaved chaotically. If he did what he did because he wanted his party to finally get moving again, it falls back into the grey Neutral area, because it helps more than just his own personal agenda.

By a similar note, the process V used to kill Kubota wasn't painful, unusually cruel, and V didn't torture or cause any undue suffering in his actions. If anything, V was trying to prevent harm by Kubota by recognizing that a court is exactly where Kubota was likely to be strongest, and that Kubota was more likely to 'get away with it. On the moral side of the argument, V's actions could almost be good, if his reasons for killing Kubota were to protect others. This, however, was not his stated reason, though, so it lies in the grey Neutral area instead of Evil.

So, in my view, V's actions were in keeping with True Neutral. Others can debate otherwise stating that deed is more important than intention or motivation, but I disagree on those lines of reasoning. Actions are just actions while ethics and morals are about WHY things are done.

Saph
2009-05-01, 07:06 AM
Well, the way I'd put it would be:

Lying is slightly Evil and maybe Chaotic.
Stealing is mildly Evil and strongly Chaotic.
Killing is strongly Evil and neither Lawful nor Chaotic.

Circumstances modify this. Lying and stealing are often Neutral acts, rather than Evil ones, and sometimes they can even be Good. Even killing someone isn't necessarily evil if it's done in self-defence or similar circumstances. So you can have a character who's lied, stolen, and killed in the past who's still Good-aligned.

But if lying, stealing, and killing is your character's typical behaviour, then they're probably Evil. Not necessarily - it's still possible for them to be Neutral or even Good - but you'd better have a REAL good reason.

So to get back to your question:


When exactly is chaotic behavior different from evil behavior? In the real world, it's considered wrong, downright evil to lie to people. We get all kinds of scam in our e-mail box for, e.g., the Nigerian bank game, or ' make money fast' or whatever, and we never think of the perpetrators as chaotic. Lies, in the real world, are intended to make people behave in a way they wouldn't if they knew the facts ... otherwise, why not just tell the truth?

Same with stealing. In the real world, all cultures condemn and punish stealing as evil, and anyone who's had their identity stolen online knows why this is. Yet in D&D, it's 'chaotic', not 'evil'.

I'd say that most of the actions you're describing (scamming, identity theft) would in a D&D world be considered Chaotic AND Evil. Yes, some people will defend them as non-Evil, but that's more due to differing opinions than because they think that Chaotic and Evil actions are the same thing. :P

It's also an aspect of personal alignment. Chaotic Neutral people think Chaotic is Good and Lawful is Evil. Lawful Neutral people think Chaotic is Evil and Lawful is Good. They might not say it exactly that way, though. :)

- Saph

InaVegt
2009-05-01, 07:29 AM
But if lying, stealing, and killing is your character's typical behaviour, then they're probably Evil. Not necessarily - it's still possible for them to be Neutral or even Good - but you'd better have a REAL good reason.

How about a character who infiltrates in an evil sect trying to summon <insert apocalyptic being here>, and in order to be convincing needs to lie, steal, and occasionally kill some higher ups to rise through the ranks until s/he gets to the point of being able to irrevocably destroy the plot.

That's a very chaotic way of achieving the goal, but it's definitely good.

Also, if lying is evil, is the myth of santa claus evil?

mcv
2009-05-01, 07:31 AM
I think the easiest way to look at it is that good <-> evil is about ends, and lawful <-> chaotic is about means.

Robin Hood is IMO the supreme example of Chaotic Good. He robbed lots of people, but he only robbed those who deserved (or at least could afford) it, and he didn't keep the loot to himself, he gave it to the poor. So he commits crime, but for a good cause.

Chaotic makes you a rebel, but you can still be a rebel for a good cause.

Another way to look at it is that Chaotic is not-Lawful, and Evil is not-Good. Lawful is about living by the rules, Good is about helping others. If you're out to help yourself at the cost of others, then you're Evil. If you break the rules (but not necessarily to harm others), you're Chaotic.

What made V's deal with the devil truly evil was not so much the deal itself, and that he did it to save his family even gave it something noble. But if he'd been willing to swallow his pride and trust others to help out, he could have saved them without the deal. In the end, he did it to achieve ultimate arcane power. He did it out of pride, and not out of some noble sacrifice to save his family.

It's a fuzzy thing, though. Highly subjective and a constant source of discussion on the Web. And as Haley and Elan prove, not everybody who's Chaotic Good has the same values. (I'm not really sure Elan is Chaotic, though. I'd call him Neutral-Good.)

deuxhero
2009-05-01, 07:49 AM
Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich (no idea where that came from), he stole from the government that had unlawfully taken from it's citizens (and how does being successful make you deserve criminal actions taken against you?).

kamikasei
2009-05-01, 07:57 AM
(and how does being successful make you deserve criminal actions taken against you?).

The general assumption is that:
a) when people are living large while their neighbours are starving, it's morally defensible for a "Robin Hood" to steal their luxuries to give others the necessities of life.
b) more importantly, the rich in these scenarios are supposed to be corrupt, cheating, or profiting from the injustices of the realm.

Saph
2009-05-01, 07:58 AM
How about a character who infiltrates in an evil sect trying to summon <insert apocalyptic being here>, and in order to be convincing needs to lie, steal, and occasionally kill some higher ups to rise through the ranks until s/he gets to the point of being able to irrevocably destroy the plot.

That's a very chaotic way of achieving the goal, but it's definitely good.

Maybe good . . . but you're going to be skating close to the edge. To be sufficiently convincing to the evil sect, you're likely to have to do some pretty depraved things. So there's a real chance you're going to end up becoming what you're pretending to be. "Hey Bob, praise to the Dark Masters. You know you've been wanting to prove your loyalty, well, the boss has decided to let you perform the ritual sacrifice on Friday. Keep it up!"

- Saph

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-01, 08:19 AM
A silly yet effective way I've always thought of the difference between the different alignment categories:

Captain Jack Sparrow is Evil. He kills people, steals, and is an overall nasty fellow. However, he does not kill Will Turner to first time he sees him ("This shot is not meant for you") and he sticks to a Rule of Law, or the 'Code' as it were. He is classic Lawful Evil; doing anything he can to get ahead while obeying the rules he sets forth.

The East India Trading Company's Head Guy (I'll call him Bob because I forgot his name...) is Chaotic. He reneges on his promises and is willing do anything to get ahead, though he does not randomly go around killing people for his personal profit. Bob is a classic Chaotic Neutral; he cares not for these pirates and openly breaks his deals to further himself or just because it amuses him.

Beckett is Lawful. Anytime he catches a pirate, he does the honorable thing by bringing them to trial and letting justice run its course. Even though he knows full well that piracy is punishable by death 100% of the time, Beckett still goes through the formality of bringing the pirates back to port instead of just shooting them while on his ship. Beckett is classical Lawful Good; he follows the Rule of Law to a tee and is willing to help those who are also 'good.'

Batman is Good. Batman considers himself the only true justice in Gotham and he brings in the bad guys left and right. He certainly is not Lawful, as Batman knows that being a vigilante is just as illegal as being the Joker. He does whatever is necessary to further good; if you have read the comics you know that there are a couple of times when Gordan has to stop Batman from just killing the Joker. Batman is classical Chaotic Good; he is working outside a set system to produce good.

House is Neutral. He doesn't care whether the patient lives or dies. That doesn't mean that he doesn't want the patient to live, but he would not be horribly upset if they did. The well being of the patient doesn't come into play when House takes a patient, only whether the case interests him. .House is an example of True Neutral; he mainly does his job because it interests him.

In real world examples, stealing is Chaotic. A bank robber is Chaotic Neutral; they are stealing money to further their gain. If someone pulled a gun on them, the robber would shoot to protect himself but he has no reason to cause a massacre. But stealing can also be Evil; someone who only steals from a charity organization because he wants them to suffer is Evil.

As I said, my examples are silly but they have worked for me.
Best of luck.
-Eddie

Tiki Snakes
2009-05-01, 08:32 AM
Wait, Captain Jack...Lawfull? Really? on account of how honest and non-duplicitious he is, perhaps? >_>

I mean, I'd disagree a little on the Evil bit too, frankly, putting him neutral or even unaligned on that axis, (depending on edition. ;) ) but seriously...lawful? *brain explodes*

Starbuck_II
2009-05-01, 08:53 AM
A silly yet effective way I've always thought of the difference between the different alignment categories:

Captain Jack Sparrow is Evil. He kills people, steals, and is an overall nasty fellow. However, he does not kill Will Turner to first time he sees him ("This shot is not meant for you") and he sticks to a Rule of Law, or the 'Code' as it were. He is classic Lawful Evil; doing anything he can to get ahead while obeying the rules he sets forth.


Do you know the East India Trading Company hates Jack? Why he is the most wanted Pirate to them?

Because he freed the slaves once. No I am serious: that is his original crime.

Freeing slaves can't be evil. So that is why I argue Jack is CN with evil tendencies.

He has a heart: can't stand slavery because he is a Choatic guy (Freedom is his desire).
Plus, remember the pirate code is "guidelines to live by". They aren't hard and fast rules: mostly suggestions so pirates can deal with each other without too much paranoia.

Harperfan7
2009-05-01, 09:01 AM
I agree with MCV and Fixer.

Also, I want to add that lying is not really any different that punching or stabbing, nor is stealing. If you do something to cause harm or set back another, it's the reason you do it, not just that you did it that makes it lawful/chaotic/good/evil/neutral. It's who you did it to and why. Look at actions as tools. If you use a tool against someone (hurt them, steal from them, lie to them) because they are causing disruption and not going along with a plan (like laws), and it will stop them (or help stop them) - that's lawful, if you do it because they are restricting you or others and it will stop or help stop them - that's chaotic, if you do it because they are setting you back and you can gain from it - that's neutral, if you do it because they harm others and lower quality of life - that's good, if you do it because you want to and dislike them - that's evil.

That only covers whether or not an action is alignment based in intent. If the action is say, lawful in intent, but will hinder the law, then it's probably neutral. If you torture some guy (evil act) to get information to save a village (good intent), that's probably neutral too.

Take V killing Kubota. Kubota was doing evil things with evil intentions, but V killed him because V wanted to and could gain from it, so I would say it was a neutral act (on the Good-Evil axis). V killed him because it was he was impeding her and V could gain from it, making it a neutral act (on the Chaos-Law axis). It was a solidly neutral act.

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-01, 09:05 AM
Wait, Captain Jack...Lawfull? Really? on account of how honest and non-duplicitious he is, perhaps? >_>

I mean, I'd disagree a little on the Evil bit too, frankly, putting him neutral or even unaligned on that axis, (depending on edition. ;) ) but seriously...lawful? *brain explodes*

Aye, Lawful.

Lawful simply means you follow a Code or a set of morals. Jack followed the Code, but mostly because he expected others to follow it when it would benefit him. That's how Lawful Evil characters turn out to be so successful. Devils will try to screw you over left and right, but Asmodious is the 'Patron Saint' of Deal Making. I once played a Monk who was Lawful Neutral in a completely evil campaign. I just typed out a sheet of like 50 rules I would never break and I upheld them. Jack probably wasn't the best example, but I was trying to stick with a good "Evil but follows his rules" that could be found in popular culture.

Devils are the epitome of Lawful Evil, where as Demons are the epitome of Chaotic Evil. Devils worship order and will further their means in any way providing they maintain that order but it's not because they completely like to keep ducks in a line but because it's the only way they are going to be successful. Demons often burn down bridges, even if they have to cross them; destruction for the sake of destruction.

A hitman who kills anyone for money is Neutral Evil. The hitman who kills anyone for money and tortures them for fun is Chaotic Evil. The hitman who will kill anyone for money except for women and children is Lawful Evil. In a way, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Good are very similar. Both NE and CG follow a "Whatever means necessary" idea, but NE does it to further himself and CG does it to further the good/people/cause.

pendell
2009-05-01, 09:07 AM
In real world examples, stealing is Chaotic. A bank robber is Chaotic Neutral; they are stealing money to further their gain. If someone pulled a gun on them, the robber would shoot to protect himself but he has no reason to cause a massacre. But stealing can also be Evil; someone who only steals from a charity organization because he wants them to suffer is Evil.


-Eddie

Ed,

I can make sense of most of your examples but this one throws me for a loop. Isn't the bank robber in the example taking something that doesn't belong to him? Something he has no right to? Something that innocent (and guilty ones too, I guess) people put in the bank? Don't his actions directly cause harm to others for the sake of his own personal gain?

And that's assuming this is a middle-of-the-night cat burglary. If this is a Jesse James-style stickup -- isn't he putting a lot of people at risk of life and limb? By going into a bank waving a gun, isn't he accepting the risk that he may wind up having to kill someone who wants to be a hero, or a bank guard who's only crime is showing up for his job that day?

So I would argue that robbing a bank is evil bar really extenuating circumstances e.g it's wartime and there's something in the vault the Good Guys (TM) need. But robbing a bank solely for the sake of personal profit and amusement would seem to me to be evil.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tiki Snakes
2009-05-01, 09:12 AM
Aye, Lawful.

Lawful simply means you follow a Code or a set of morals. Jack followed the Code, but mostly because he expected others to follow it when it would benefit him. That's how Lawful Evil characters turn out to be so successful. Devils will try to screw you over left and right, but Asmodious is the 'Patron Saint' of Deal Making. I once played a Monk who was Lawful Neutral in a completely evil campaign. I just typed out a sheet of like 50 rules I would never break and I upheld them. Jack probably wasn't the best example, but I was trying to stick with a good "Evil but follows his rules" that could be found in popular culture.


I'd just like to say that nothing in the chaotic alignment really prohibits a person from having their own set of rules and morals. I see where you are coming from, though.

Mostly this reminds me for the xth time that I really don't miss 3.5's alignment system, (and frankly am going to be slowly phasing out all alignment nonsense from 4th edition, too, I think. Or just calling everything unaligned and being done with it!)

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-01, 09:22 AM
Ed,

I can make sense of most of your examples but this one throws me for a loop. Isn't the bank robber in the example taking something that doesn't belong to him? Something he has no right to? Something that innocent (and guilty ones too, I guess) people put in the bank? Don't his actions directly cause harm to others for the sake of his own personal gain?


The robber is taking something that doesn't belong to him. But Evil is not defined by "he broke the law, so he is evil", it's defined by a moral code. The robber knows completely that the vault is not his, but he wants it for himself and is willing to break the law to obtain it. The robber is working for his own personal gain, and didn't even think about the pain he was causing to others. The robber wasn't killing people because he knew that it was wrong, he wasn't killing people because they meant nothing to him and killing them would be going out of his way to hurt them. Ever see Dog Day Afternoon? I would classify Sal as Chaotic Neutral. He didn't shoot people because he didn't need to, but he was certainly willing to. Chaotic Neutral is almost Chaotic Lazy: "If I don't gotta, I ain't gonna!"

Think of it like Robin Hood, who most people will agree is Chaotic Good. He is breaking the law by stealing from the 'King' and is thereby disrespecting the laws. However, Robin Hood is not evil because he is breaking the laws to do good. Between Robin Hood and the Guard who is upholding the edict of the 'King', you get fascinating gray areas. The Guard is upholding the Law to keep order: he gets no benefit from disorder nor order, it's just his job. The Guard is Lawful Good but still fights Robin Hood. The Sheriff is LE to the core. He is following the laws, but is screwing over as many people as possible to further himself.

Good day to you Brian :smallsmile:
-Eddie

kamikasei
2009-05-01, 09:23 AM
Lawful simply means you follow a Code or a set of morals.

I'd dispute that. Besides which, having a fixation or point of pride does not amount to lawfulness. The way you paint it, chaotic becomes equivalent to "unprincipled" or "craven".

On bank robbery: I think you're rather missing the point. In robbing a bank, you're harming the people who deposited their money there. You may not be shooting the guards, but you're taking money (the intermediate form of the work they did to keep their families from starving to death, just to put it starkly) from people who have done nothing to harm you. That's evil. It may only be mildly evil (if you reason that, say, the depositors will be repaid out of insurance, so the real harm is done to some less innocent group). It may be less evil than if you shot everyone in the bank while you robbed it. But it doesn't become neutral simply for not being the worst thing you could have done.

Harperfan7
2009-05-01, 09:26 AM
Holy crap. Captain Jack Sparrow is nowhere near lawful evil.

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

-He acts to save others at risk to himself (though most of the time for somewhat selfish reasons). He never kills an innocent or in cold blood.

"Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master."

-Barely Jack at all.

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."

-Jack is somewhere between this and good

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

-According to this, Jack is barely lawful at all (remember, the pirates code is simply there to promote neutrality amongst the chaotic acting pirates. And its more of a guideline, really.)

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

-Do I have to say anything?

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

-Jack is somewhere between this and chaotic.

So Chaoticish-neutral, Goodish-neutral.

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-01, 09:27 AM
Mostly this reminds me for the xth time that I really don't miss 3.5's alignment system, (and frankly am going to be slowly phasing out all alignment nonsense from 4th edition, too, I think. Or just calling everything unaligned and being done with it!)

I can certainly understand the reasoning between wanting to throw out the Alignment System. It is highly imperfect because what do you call the Spanish Inquisition Soldier who killed people? He wasn't breaking any Law (IE, those were his orders) and can be considered Evil if he sees what he is doing as the work of the Divine? Alignment is FAR too complicated to knock down to only nine different choices. Hell, the social question "Is violence an acceptable means
for doing good?" has stirred discussion since the days of Socrates. Wizards of the Coast sure isn't going to solve it for a gaming system :smallwink:

Tiki Snakes
2009-05-01, 09:46 AM
It doesn't help that, real world at least, I don't even really beleive in Evil as anything more than an artificial concept, really.

I'm only a little less sceptical on the idea of 'Good' existing in any meaningfull way. ;)

JellyPooga
2009-05-01, 10:18 AM
I can certainly understand the reasoning between wanting to throw out the Alignment System. It is highly imperfect because what do you call the Spanish Inquisition Soldier who killed people? He wasn't breaking any Law (IE, those were his orders) and can be considered Evil if he sees what he is doing as the work of the Divine? Alignment is FAR too complicated to knock down to only nine different choices. Hell, the social question "Is violence an acceptable means
for doing good?" has stirred discussion since the days of Socrates. Wizards of the Coast sure isn't going to solve it for a gaming system :smallwink:

In a game I'm designing, I've changed Alignment to describe personality traits rather than some vague concept of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos and it's a four way sliding scale. Due to theme, it uses the classical four Elements (Earth, Air, Fire and Water) and their stereotyped traits (for example, someone heavily aligned with Earth is likely to be stoic and dependable, whilst someone more aligned with Fire will be rash and mercurial).

Under this system it is possible to have equal alignment with multiple (or all) the Elements, which either means you have no particular inclication to either or that possess the traits of both in some manner (whether that means they combine or you swing between is up to you...for example someone with a heavy leaning towards Earth and Fire could either be normally very dependable, but prone to occasional wild fancies or simply be about average in that respect).

Piedmon_Sama
2009-05-01, 12:55 PM
I've never liked the "being lawful is about following a set of ethics, including your own" argument. There is nothing stopping Chaotic people from having an internally-consistent set of ethics or rules, the difference is they impose it on themselves because they will it. Being lawful is about accepting the authority of others---it has to be, or the distinction between Law/Chaos becomes meaningless.

I have a player in my campaign right now who insists his Monk is Lawful Good because "she's true to her own values at all costs." This character attacks and loots anything she can get away with, and was exiled from her (Elven) homelands for murder. I used to try and argue with him about it but finally I just removed Alignment from the game. Weapons that work against 'evil-alignment only' now just work against undead, demons and beings of 'supernatural evil.'

John Campbell
2009-05-01, 01:23 PM
Chaotic simply means "individual before group". Lawful means the opposite - "group before individual". Both alignments can cover a huge variety of behaviors and personality traits, many - or most - of which can fit in both. The "individual" in Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean "me", either - you can be Chaotic and very selfless. It's just that a Chaotic character is less willing to compromise or sacrifice an individual for the greater good, and the like.

I'd broaden that to "specific before general" and "general before specific", respectively, but I think you've hit the root of it. Chaotic characters are more likely to make situational exceptions, while Lawful characters are more likely to avoid exceptions in favor of consistency.

TheCountAlucard
2009-05-01, 01:33 PM
Also, if lying is evil, is the myth of santa claus evil?Santa's not a myth; he's a Druid 13/Cleric 5/Rogue 2 with eight awakened reindeer (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Santa.pdf).

Zeful
2009-05-01, 02:45 PM
Chaos and Evil are separate things. Chaos tends to indicate personal ethics or morals over that of society. While Evil tends to indicate personal gain. These can be finagled with depending on circumstance. For instance: A wizard conducting research into necromancy, contacting devils and killing all who "misunderstand his research", could be Lawful Evil, if he's doing this to rule the world, or Lawful Neutral if he's trying to revive his long dead wife, who's beyond the power of the gods (read: Cleric) to bring back from the abyss. Same actions, different motivations.
On the other hand you could have a con-artist, stealing a little money from anybody who falls for his act, trying to eek out a better life for himself, so he doesn't have to steal anymore, which is Chaotic Neutral at best. Or he could do it to help some young orphans he met in prison (he's still a thief after all) so they don't have to steal anymore, which is Chaotic Good at worst.

When it comes down to it, the "why" can have as much weight on alignment as the "what".

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-01, 04:10 PM
It helps if you read over the alignment descriptions:

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
. . .
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.


Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
. . .
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
As has been said before, the easiest heuristic is that if you are benefiting yourself at the expense of others - Evil. If you are focused on personal motivations rather than societal norms - Chaotic.

And you must realize that actions are neither evil nor chaotic, but the motivations behind them are.
E-mail scams are generally Evil (someone else is intending to steal your money) and Chaotic (willingness to break the law and their own word). The sheer recklessness of the e-mail scam also tends it towards CE - they target anyone who will bite, and do not care about the disruption they may cause).

Lying is a more ambiguous act - it can stem from many motivations. You may lie to a dying friend to give them peace before death (Good), lie about your opinions to get out of jury duty (Neutral), or lie to someone to con them out of their money (Evil). As noted in the description, lying is usually a Chaotic act though it could be Neutral for "white lies." I don't think lying can ever be considered Lawful since being Lawful explicitly contains "tell the truth" as a tenet.

Theft is usually Evil, but it can be Neutral or even Good. Stealing a loaf of bread from a successful baker in order to stave off starvation is Neutral; stealing the bandits' treasure to return it to its victims is Good. Legal theft (seizing of property for taxes) is Lawful, petty theft is Neutral, and grand theft is Chaotic.
Finally, and this is important, the real world uses Subjective morality - D&D uses Objective morality. This is by far the most common error I've seen people make with alignment - alignment does not vary from culture to culture in D&D; it has an Objective meaning which is invariant.

Zeful
2009-05-01, 04:35 PM
Alignment does not vary from culture to culture in D&D; it has an Objective meaning which is invariant.

But the subjective actions that lead to those alignments change. One can be Lawful Good, while doing things often attributed to Chaotic Evil for the reasons of honor and altruism instead of sadism and greed.

hamishspence
2009-05-01, 04:52 PM
And not everyone takes a "subjective in real-life" approach- some people feel that certain acts are always evil with no excuses.

While some actions are more context-sensitive than others, even within D&D rulebooks, others are "no justification"

BoVD makes case that lying is not always evil, but stealing is (at least, it doesn't say "not always evil" the way it does with lying. Instead "Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong").

However, not all examples of "taking another person's property" fit the definition of stealing- when a criminal's property is impounded to pay for his crimes- thats not considered stealing, for example.

Zeful
2009-05-01, 05:15 PM
And not everyone takes a "subjective in real-life" approach- some people feel that certain acts are always evil with no excuses.

While some actions are more context-sensitive than others, even within D&D rulebooks, others are "no justification"I can think of only one act that is 110% evil: Rape. Under no circumstances can it be considered good. If there are more please point them out.


BoVD makes case that lying is not always evil, but stealing is (at least, it doesn't say "not always evil" the way it does with lying. Instead "Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong").

However, not all examples of "taking another person's property" fit the definition of stealing- when a criminal's property is impounded to pay for his crimes- thats not considered stealing, for example.

Is a con-artist stealing if people give him money? Is taking the stolen goods from a thief stealing? What about the blood-stained gold held by an Overlord? Would it be wrong to take from those who handle the loss to help those who can't help themselves?

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-01, 06:11 PM
Ed,
So I would argue that robbing a bank is evil bar really extenuating circumstances e.g it's wartime and there's something in the vault the Good Guys (TM) need. But robbing a bank solely for the sake of personal profit and amusement would seem to me to be evil.
Dear Pendall,

To properly understand the ramifications of bank robbery upon alignment, you must first view the cinematic masterpiece Bandits.

[Seriously, this whole issue revolves around whichever DM is running your game. There's a reason that the PHB defines alignments as vaguely as a religious text defines morality; it's supposed to be up for interpretation. When I DM, my rule of thumb is: men robbing banks is Evil, but men robbing banks with a hott emotionally disturbed red-head is only Chaotic.]

Draco Dracul
2009-05-01, 06:46 PM
I can think of only one act that is 110% evil: Rape. Under no circumstances can it be considered good. If there are more please point them out.


What about genocide? Which strangely while completely abhorrent in real life could be justified in D&D in the case of always evil creatures such as demon and chromatic dragons.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-01, 07:41 PM
But the subjective actions that lead to those alignments change. One can be Lawful Good, while doing things often attributed to Chaotic Evil for the reasons of honor and altruism instead of sadism and greed.
No, no they don't.

At some point you pass the point of plausible deniability; the proposed reasons for a character's action cannot be the actual reasons they are acting.

For example, Good characters "protect innocent life" and "respect life." If a Good character decides to kill every goblin they come across - even when asleep or held prisoner - then they are no longer "respecting life" even if they loudly declare that they are preventing the death of potential merchants. A Lawful character who lies consistently "for the good of the State" is not going to be Lawful, because Lawful characters "tell the truth."

Morally questionable actions rarely change alignment - an alignment change is supposed to occur when a character has obviously changed their moral perspective. Paladins are the exception, as they can Fall for doing a single Evil act.

Dixieboy
2009-05-01, 09:10 PM
Aye, Lawful.

Lawful simply means you follow a Code or a set of morals. Jack followed the Code, but mostly because he expected others to follow it when it would benefit him.
Really, you are joking, you have to be.

Jack is CN, with both evil and good tendencies.

I cannot think of a single time where he followed the pirate code when something else would've been better for him.
He follows the code when it's convenient, and frankly doesn't care about it the rest of the time.

He values freedom over everything else, willing to become what Davy jones is now just so he can sail on the high seas forever.

He shows all the traits of being chaotic on a regular basis but the only one he shows of being Lawful is the fact that he follows a code once in a while.

And please tell me how the East India guy isn't evil, he is willing to completely disregard the lives of those who aren't him for personal gain.
To me he seems very lawful, but that's personal opinion, the whole following the law to the letter but twisting it to his own purpose seems Lawful to me.


A Lawful character who lies consistently "for the good of the State" is not going to be Lawful, because Lawful characters "tell the truth."
I would agree with you, if not for the Alignment "Lawful evil"
Those guy tends to lie
A lot.

Roderick_BR
2009-05-01, 10:44 PM
Imagine a cop shooting a guy in the back of his head, and then riding the body, cause he's in a hurry, and to avoid having to fill in papers, and wait for the guy's trial, because he's "obviously" guilty of something.
That would be both chaotic and evil.

In the OP's first example, lying would be basically chaotic, but would be good, neutral, or evil, according to the intentions and results. It's hard to examine each axis separately. You can't have something pure chaotic, or pure evil. You need to analize CG/CN/CE, or LE/NE/CE.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-01, 10:54 PM
I can think of only one act that is 110% evil: Rape. Under no circumstances can it be considered good.First (http://www.superstupor.com/sust11262007.shtml) thing I thought of reading that.

Also, NSFW due to language.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-01, 10:55 PM
I would agree with you, if not for the Alignment "Lawful evil"
Those guy tends to lie
A lot.
Well, they shouldn't.

Remember the archetype for LE - Satan (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Satan) and the classic Deal With The Devil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DealWithTheDevil). Your standard "deal" is exactly what it says it is - but everything may not be as it seems; ambiguous wording (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactWords), omitted details (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoopholeAbuse) and Literal Genie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiteralGenie) antics are par for the course. This is why the SRD definition of Lawful says "tell the truth" not "be honest."

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Of course LE guys are deceptive, but every word they say is true (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CanNotTellALie) - though what you heard may have not been what they meant. Nor will they fail to follow through on a promise - after all, they gave their word. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IGaveMyWord)

A NE guy will lie to you when convenient and break contracts when they get too difficult to fulfill. CE guys only follow through on their promises when they feel like it, and feel no particular drive to tell the truth.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-01, 11:04 PM
Haven't read other responses, so forgive me if I'm repeating others:

1. I'll go out on a limb and say that relatively few people consider all lying to be evil. Heck, polite lying is outright expected under several circumstances.

2. Something isn't Evil unless you're actually screwing someone over somehow. This is frankly a bare minimum that an interpretation of alignment has to adhere to in order to not be completely ridiculous. We can argue all day about in what circumstances screwing someone over (i.e. if you kill someone in self-defense, it sucks to be him, amirite?) is non-Evil, but Evil is at least a subset of those actions that are to the detriment of sentient beings.

3. Let's look at an example behavior that can easily vary on the Law/Chaos axis: the use of coercion to obtain someone else's money. If a mugger threatens you to get you to hand over your wallet, that's Chaotic, because it's criminal and society frowns on it. If a government threatens citizens with punishment if they don't pay their taxes, that's Lawful, because it's a policy enacted by a legitimate authority and society pretty much expects it. In either case, the Good/Evil involved depends on what the money is used for, who it's taken from, what's done with individuals who don't cooperate, etc.

Does that clarify?

Xuincherguixe
2009-05-02, 06:10 AM
I would say that, for the most part Jack Sparrow is more good than evil. There are times when he is motivated by selfish actions, but the way things work out, it almost seems like he kind of planned it like that, and was only "seeming" to be selfish. I think there were a lot of simultaneous, adaptable plans going on in that head of his.

Actually, kind of a chaotic way of running a strategy too. Things don't work out quite right? Well at least you benefit in some other way. Not a whole lot of commitment to any one plan.

And while he may have had strong values, he wasn't particularly concerned with the specifics of how to accomplish his goals.

I'd say Chaotic Good, because in the end most of the time he ended up doing the right thing.


Alignments are unfortunately very vague. Which is how someone like Jack Sparrow can be accused of being just about anything.

Breaking the Law is not strictly Chaotic, and Chaos is more than breaking the law. While individual actions may be destructive, an individual can't be evil unless they are willfully destructive to society in general. On that note, this is also how breaking laws can be considered good, because some laws may be bad for society.

People make mistakes. Sometimes those who could be considered evil are the ones making the laws, which serve selfish purposes.


As to lying... I'm one of those rare types that considers it to be destructive all around. Not really sure what evil really is though, so I can hardly call it that. Well intentioned lies pretty much all come back to that you don't consider the recipient to being capable of handling the truth, and may also be selfish as well.

Stephen_E
2009-05-02, 11:06 AM
Serving that kind of personal whim is what makes it chaotic. Killing an enemy who has surrendered himself might also be considered a chaotic act, since the lawful (read: honorable) thing to do here would be to put him on trial. But lawful doesn't necessarily mean law-abiding. The two are often correlated, but there are lawful characters who don't blindly obey every law on the books.


Here is a good example of why people confuse Chaos with Evil. They equate Honourable with Lawful. There is no such connection. Chaotic people are just as likely to be "honourable" (in all it's multitude of definitions) as Lawful people. It would probably be fair to say that Good people are more likely to be hounourable than Evil, but even so there is no hard "honourable=Alignment "x" ".

Once you make the mistake of equating honour with law then you left with the logic that dishonour = chaos. It's on;t a small step to then conflate Chaos with Evil.

It should also be noted that theft has no particular relationship with Chaos. Chaos and Law influence how you steal, not wether you steal. Taxation is a form of extortion (a subset of theft) carried out by goverments. Indeed extortion in general is a lawful form of theft. It is theft on an organised and structured scale. Burgalary on the otherhand is more likely to be of chaotic persuasion.

Stephen E

Draco Dracul
2009-05-02, 11:32 AM
Here is a good example of why people confuse Chaos with Evil. They equate Honourable with Lawful. There is no such connection. Chaotic people are just as likely to be "honourable" (in all it's multitude of definitions) as Lawful people. It would probably be fair to say that Good people are more likely to be hounourable than Evil, but even so there is no hard "honourable=Alignment "x" ".

Once you make the mistake of equating honour with law then you left with the logic that dishonour = chaos. It's on;t a small step to then conflate Chaos with Evil.

It should also be noted that theft has no particular relationship with Chaos. Chaos and Law influence how you steal, not wether you steal. Taxation is a form of extortion (a subset of theft) carried out by goverments. Indeed extortion in general is a lawful form of theft. It is theft on an organised and structured scale. Burgalary on the otherhand is more likely to be of chaotic persuasion.

Stephen E

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think the problem is that people equate honor with Good. This leads to any character who fights pragmatically rather than honorably to be labeled as evil for not following arbitrary rule of combat (this does not include actions like taking innocent bystanders as hostages or similar acts that can harm people not involved in combat).

Riffington
2009-05-02, 11:37 AM
Lying is inherently chaotic, and typically evil. If you are lying to manipulate others, it's evil. If you are lying without harming anyone, it's not evil. For instance, if you go to a hotel and give a fake name just to pretend to be someone else for a day, that's not evil at all. If you give a fake name to get out of paying, it is.

Theft is typically chaotic and evil. Sometimes (some taxation, as Stephen_E points out), it is not chaotic at all; this has no bearing on whether it is evil. There are instances (some taxation) when it is not evil either. Contra Stephen_E, extortion is chaotic. You are going outside of how society is set up to take money. Your culture has set up a system by which property is held, and you are going around this system. You may have a systematic way of doing so, but it's chaotic (and evil).

Robin Hood did not steal from the King. He "stole" from an illegitimate usurper who was stealing from the King (since Lionheart hadn't given the authority to impose those taxes on the peasants). Robin Hood was returning stolen goods to where they belonged, not stealing.

re: ends vs means: if you use evil means to accomplish good ends, you are evil. You are also highly likely to accomplish bad ends instead of the good ones you hope for.

Bonus question only for those who don't think that poisoning your parents for the inheritance is evil: why is rape evil?

Draco Dracul
2009-05-02, 11:42 AM
Robin Hood did not steal from the King. He "stole" from an illegitimate usurper who was stealing from the King (since Lionheart hadn't given the authority to impose those taxes on the peasants). Robin Hood was returning stolen goods to where they belonged, not stealing.


Of course John would not have had to impose such high taxes had Richard not bankrupted England on his crusades. Also, with the king held captive John was the next in line to the thrown and the Defacto head of state.

Was Robin Hood "stealing" from the mustache twirling evil Prince John that normally appears in Robin Hood stories? By your definition, no and even if one believes Robin Hood was stealing he was certainly justified.

Would Robin Hood be stealing from the historical Prince John? Yes, whether Robin Hood would be justified is debatable.

Riffington
2009-05-02, 12:07 PM
Of course John would not have had to impose such high taxes had Richard not bankrupted England on his crusades. Also, with the king held captive John was the next in line to the thrown and the Defacto head of state.

Was Robin Hood "stealing" from the mustache twirling evil Prince John that normally appears in Robin Hood stories? By your definition, no and even if one believes Robin Hood was stealing he was certainly justified.

Would Robin Hood be stealing from the historical Prince John? Yes, whether Robin Hood would be justified is debatable.

Richard never financially bankrupted England (well, he bankrupted it of its most intelligent and productive people, but that blow wouldn't be felt for years). He sold off titles and lands, but that helped reduce centralization of power. I wouldn't call him a great man, but his legend is pretty cool.

John levied taxes to bribe Henry VI to keep Richard captive. One can hardly call him a legitimate authority when he's raising money to keep the legitimate authority prisoner. I don't know that the historical Prince John is much better than the one in the stories - and neither should be obeyed.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-02, 12:14 PM
They equate Honourable with Lawful. There is no such connection. Chaotic people are just as likely to be "honourable" (in all it's multitude of definitions) as Lawful people. It would probably be fair to say that Good people are more likely to be hounourable than Evil, but even so there is no hard "honourable=Alignment "x" ".

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
"No such connection"? Really?

I'd venture to say that "honor" and D&D Law have at least a whole lot of overlap; most things that one at least ambiguously refers to is at least ambiguously referred to by the other.

Lawful can mean, basically, either "honest" or "compliant". Those are two different if overlapping things, though, and I'd prefer each alignment axis to be about one thing. And it seems dumb for killing to be considered situationally aligned but lying to be always Chaotic, so I'd prefer to give lying in general no particular alignment. Then socially condemned lying would be Chaotic and socially expected lying would be Lawful.

The rules seem somewhat less clear on what the definitive Chaotic trait is. Resistance to being controlled, it looks like? I guess that if Law is honor, Chaos is independence; compliance/honesty and rebellion/innovation, respectively. But of course honesty doesn't conflict with anything about Chaos and innovation doesn't conflict with anything about Law, which is why I think it's best to leave those aspects out and go with Law as actively rule-following and Chaos as actively rule-breaking, respectively. (I feel that total inaction should always be Neutral by definition.)

The "rules" involved may be unwritten and indeed unstated. However, they do need to be someone else's rules, not just something that your character made up. Whatever your character's routine behavior, it can be stated in imperative form. Acting completely different every day should not be required for Chaotic alignment. Having a some sort of consistent personality for your character should be considered good roleplaying, not the character being any particular alignment. Chaos just means that one's behavior doesn't conform to society, not that it's variable. Wu jen are Chaotic because each one has her own personal weird particular ways of doing things.

Anyway, there's waaaaaaay more support in the core 3.X rules for Law as honor and Chaos as dishonor than there is for Law as order and Chaos as disorder. There's no reason you can't have an eccentric, organized Chaotic dude, or a Lawful slob loyal to his king, homeland, god, church, etc. The whole "Law=OCD, Chaos=ADD" thing makes the "ethical" axis not about ethics at all, and encourages the roleplaying of obnoxious characters to boot.

Starbuck_II
2009-05-02, 12:58 PM
I can think of only one act that is 110% evil: Rape. Under no circumstances can it be considered good. If there are more please point them out.


The Web Comic: Dominic Deegan disagrees: they say it can be good. The alternative is she would be killed.
Not saying I agree with that idea, but there you go.

Stephen_E
2009-05-02, 07:53 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think the problem is that people equate honor with Good. This leads to any character who fights pragmatically rather than honorably to be labeled as evil for not following arbitrary rule of combat (this does not include actions like taking innocent bystanders as hostages or similar acts that can harm people not involved in combat).

Equating honour with good is the major problem when having Good/Evil alignment axis arguments. Although their is some subtext bleed over to the Lae/Chaos arguments. What it comes down to is that people tend to see honour as LG, possibly due in part to the Paladin. Sometimes they outright say it, others it's implicit in their comments on alignment.

I'd also say this isn't per se a problem caused by the alignmet descriptors, which don't actually support this particuly, but from peoples RL attitudes to ethics and morality. For all the complaints that people have about the alignment system been unrealistic the difficulties mostly stem from the fact that it is quite realistic (within the limits of its simplicty) and thus the same problems that occur in RL ethics/morality discussions occur in DnD alignment discussions.

Very few people are willing to see themselves as wrong or evil, so consequently in alignemnt discussions people tend to take those behaviours they like/approve of, and put them in the alingment corner they approve off/see themselves as. And the reverse as well, thus we have people saying lying is chaotic ect.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-05-02, 08:02 PM
Lying is inherently chaotic, and typically evil. If you are lying to manipulate others, it's evil. If you are lying without harming anyone, it's not evil. For instance, if you go to a hotel and give a fake name just to pretend to be someone else for a day, that's not evil at all. If you give a fake name to get out of paying, it is.

Theft is typically chaotic and evil. Sometimes (some taxation, as Stephen_E points out), it is not chaotic at all; this has no bearing on whether it is evil. There are instances (some taxation) when it is not evil either. Contra Stephen_E, extortion is chaotic. You are going outside of how society is set up to take money. Your culture has set up a system by which property is held, and you are going around this system. You may have a systematic way of doing so, but it's chaotic (and evil).


Skipping your comments on King John which have already been shreaded.

Explain why Lying is Chaotic.

Explain why theft is chaotic.

Re: Extortion - your claim that this is outside how society sets up to take money is clearly false as you admit yourself that this is how taxes work.

Re: "Outside society". Keep in mind that large criminal organisations ARE a society.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-05-02, 08:37 PM
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.


"No such connection"? Really?

Implies =/= equals.
From the various definitions of "Imply" the best I can come up with for your case is "tends to" and the worst is "hints at". Both a long way from supporting your case.


I'd venture to say that "honor" and D&D Law have at least a whole lot of overlap; most things that one at least ambiguously refers to is at least ambiguously referred to by the other.

Righttt. Ambigously this and ambigously that proves...... nothing much. Compelling evidence indeed.


Lawful can mean, basically, either "honest" or "compliant". Those are two different if overlapping things, though, and I'd prefer each alignment axis to be about one thing. And it seems dumb for killing to be considered situationally aligned but lying to be always Chaotic, so I'd prefer to give lying in general no particular alignment. Then socially condemned lying would be Chaotic and socially expected lying would be Lawful.

Law can mean a lot more than "honest" or "compliant", neither words been used in the general law description. As for wanting each axis to be about one thing. That's all very nice but completely unsupported by the PHB in which each axis clearly covers a broad swath (whether intentionally or because the designers could agree I don't know). I'd go further on your comments re: Lying and Killing and say that it's silly to claim any action is inherently a particular alignment.

Stephen E

742
2009-05-03, 04:16 AM
heres how i play it:
chaotic=spontaneous, flaky, flexible, disorganized, not big on rules.
lawful=ridgid, honorable, organized, generally likes to have a plan.
evil=mean, bitter, spiteful, needlessly cruel, ect.
good: see above, and add "un" to the beginning of every word.

Stephen_E
2009-05-03, 06:14 AM
heres how i play it:
chaotic=spontaneous, flaky, flexible, disorganized, not big on rules.
lawful=ridgid, honorable, organized, generally likes to have a plan.
evil=mean, bitter, spiteful, needlessly cruel, ect.
good: see above, and add "un" to the beginning of every word.


I'd dtop the honourable bit, but otherwise that's a workable approach within the rules. I'd also add in a "tends to be" where you haven't already put it.

Stephen E

Dhavaer
2009-05-03, 06:26 AM
I can think of only one act that is 110% evil: Rape.

I'm not sure that's right; rape is an act (sex) plus context (lack of consent). Sort of like how murder is an act (killing) plus context (lack of justification). The act itself isn't evil, it's the context that makes it so.

Riffington
2009-05-03, 08:48 AM
Skipping your comments on King John which have already been shreaded.
The "shredding" failed to account for the facts that 1. Richard was known to be alive, and negotiations for his release were ongoing, and 2. John was actively bribing Richard's captor to keep him captive. Therefore, he had zero legitimate authority.



Explain why Lying is Chaotic.
Explain why theft is chaotic.
They are inherently chaotic for a number of reasons. First, because they are self-contradictory. Lying presupposes communication, and then subverts that. The very thing it relies on, it attacks. If everyone lied, we'd have no communication, and no lying. This sort of inconsistency is at the root of what is chaotic. (Kant was partially correct). The same thing goes with property/theft.
Second, because they are dishonorable, as DA points out.
Third, because they are frowned upon by every society.




Re: Extortion - your claim that this is outside how society sets up to take money is clearly false as you admit yourself that this is how taxes work.

Not all taxes are extortion. Those that are, are outside of society's traditions for how taxes should work.



Re: "Outside society". Keep in mind that large criminal organisations ARE a society.

If you are talking about the Mafia, well it's a separate society. You cannot expect to steal within the Mafia and them to just chuckle about it. It's against the rules, and you'll be punished. Same goes for lying. Now, you might mean that they let you lie to the police. But people outside the Mafia aren't human to the Mafia. They're cattle. Taking milk from a cow isn't theft.
So yes, if you are able to actually start thinking like that (requirement: evil), you can be lawful within the Mafia while taking from me (not seeing it as stealing, since I'm not in the Mafia). If you see me as human, then stealing from me is a chaotic act.

JaxGaret
2009-05-03, 02:17 PM
Lying, cheating, and stealing are all Chaotic actions. They can all be Good, Neutral, or Evil, depending on the circumstances.

A lot of people fall into the trap of Chaotic = Evil and Lawful = Good. It's an understandable mistake, particularly for those who are themselves Lawful, since many of them view being Lawful as the "right" way to live.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-03, 03:06 PM
Lying, cheating, and stealing are all Chaotic actions.
Well now, it can certainly be Neutral too - particularly petty theft like shoplifting:

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Abuse of the "Take a Penny, Leave a Penny" system is also a Neutral act :smalltongue:

And - a quibble - while unlawful theft is not-Lawful, lawful theft would be. After all, the government is allowed to steal your money if it was gained by criminal means, and the bank is allowed to steal your house if you refuse to abandon it after it has been foreclosed.

Tingel
2009-05-03, 03:18 PM
And - a quibble - while unlawful theft is not-Lawful, lawful theft would be. After all, the government is allowed to steal your money if it was gained by criminal means, and the bank is allowed to steal your house if you refuse to abandon it after it has been foreclosed.
That is nonsense, as theft is by definition the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. Thus there is no such thing as "lawful theft".
Your examples are very strange. If you seize money through criminal means, then it was never "yours" to begin with, so the government doesn't take anything that is yours if it steps in and takes the money. Equally, if you are unable to make the arranged payments for your home, then it ceases to be yours, so the bank doesn't steal anything if it forces you to move out. It's the bank's house now, not yours.

Stephen_E
2009-05-03, 08:01 PM
The "shredding" failed to account for the facts that 1. Richard was known to be alive, and negotiations for his release were ongoing, and 2. John was actively bribing Richard's captor to keep him captive. Therefore, he had zero legitimate authority.

Prince John was the legal regent for the absent king. Thus je had legal authority. End of story.

King John been alive and captive, even if John was paying to have him kept captive, is completely irrelevant for purposes of legal authority.



They are inherently chaotic for a number of reasons. (1) First, because they are self-contradictory. (2) Lying presupposes communication, and then subverts that. The very thing it relies on, it attacks. If everyone lied, we'd have no communication, and no lying. This sort of inconsistency is at the root of what is chaotic. (Kant was partially correct). (3) The same thing goes with property/theft.
(4) Second, because they are dishonorable, as DA points out.
(5) Third, because they are frowned upon by every society.

(1) Hmmm. looking at the PHB, don't see anything about "self-contradictory" in the definition of Chaotic alignment.
(2) Lying is a form of communication and in know way subverts it. Communication is about conveying infomation to someone. It doesn't require the infomation be correct (indeed a huge amount of the infomation communicated in the world is incorrect, whether accidental or on purpose). Indeed a good argument can be made that lying is one of the things that pushes the development of communications. I have 1000's of printed lies currently in front of me. They're called SF and Fantasy novels. All lies. I haven't read Kant, but I recall someone who had describing his views as a Lawful person coming up with an alignment system with law on top. Given what I've seen from people who refer to him in support of their alignment views this seems likely.
(3) Again you're wrong. The concept of property are complimentary and go hand in hand, Without property there can be no theft. Without theft is there really any sense of property. In a society without the concept of property there can be no theft.
(4) As I've pointed out dishonourable=/= chaotic. DAs? defense of this was based on ambigous supported by ambigous, and honour implied in law means Chaos must be dishonourable. Indeed this arguments are a good case that Law implys honour without any substance behind that implication.
(5) Are you really claiming that theft and lying are disapproved in all societies. :smallsmile: Most of us live in societies with political systems that funtion on lies. We give awards to people for the quality of their lies. We have festivals in honour of lies. Lying in its many forms are some of the biggest industies around. As for theft, for something that is supposedly frowned on by all societies it's awfully prevalent, which suggests that it's the disapproval is in the form of crocodile tears. Indeed even within western society theft in various forms has often been approved. There have been various societies where theft was a part of life and was actually honoured, so long as it was done within certain guidelines. Cattle/horse raiding and wife stealing are just a couple of the examples. And please, none of this "it's not theft if the society approves of it" or "the targets aren't part of the society so it isn't theft" crap. That's just circular reasoning - if it runs contary to my argument it's not actually theft.




Not all taxes are extortion. Those that are, are outside of society's traditions for how taxes should work.

You are forced to pay taxes at threat of impeisonment and/or injury for services you haven't asked for. This is extortion, whether you approve of it or not. That is the tradition of taxation. You're doing the old "I approve of it so it can't be the type of activity I disapprove of". I see the same thing with definitions of terrorism in political forums.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-05-03, 08:16 PM
That is nonsense, as theft is by definition the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. Thus there is no such thing as "lawful theft".


Actually you're wrong. That may be one definition of theft, it's not the definition in either of my dictionaries. Both define it as Stealing. Now following to the definition of Stealing (and if you've ever played dictionary tag you'd know how dodgy this can be) I get - secretly approaiate or carry off (anothers property); secure by secrecy, surprise or unawares; get the start of unobserved; come or go noiselessly or unobserved; unlawfully take away anothers property.

So by one dictionary step we get a multitude of mranings, of which one fits your definition. One of five.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-05-03, 08:26 PM
Just occurred to me as a piece of whimsy that if we take alignments to their extremes then theft/stealing of property is by definition a Lawful activity since theorectical Chaotic societies (anachy as an example) may well not have the concept of "property" and theft of property requires the concept of property. :smallbiggrin:

Stephen E

Riffington
2009-05-03, 10:43 PM
Prince John was the legal regent for the absent king. Thus je had legal authority. End of story.

King John been alive and captive, even if John was paying to have him kept captive, is completely irrelevant for purposes of legal authority.
You are simply incorrect here. Regents may only act in their liege's interests. When they cease to do so, they lose all authority. There is the end of story.
Furthermore, betrayers do not have authority. For example, murder of a king makes one ineligible for succession.
You would claim that if the King goes hunting, and puts me in charge "while he is away from the castle", and I then order his guards to bind him and gag him and keep him away from the castle, that they should obey me (since I am in charge while he is away). That is risible.




(1) Hmmm. looking at the PHB, don't see anything about "self-contradictory" in the definition of Chaotic alignment.
If you're just going by the PHB, then "trustworthiness" goes in Lawful (and thus untrustworthiness in Chaotic). Lying and Stealing are untrustworthy.



I have 1000's of printed lies currently in front of me. They're called SF and Fantasy novels. All lies.
Stories that admit to being stories are not lies, truths, or anything communicative of facts. They are something else entirely (and have nothing to do with alignment).


Without theft is there really any sense of property. In a society without the concept of property there can be no theft.
There can certainly be a sense of property without theft. When I decide whether to use my pan or yours, even if we would never dream of stealing, we still know which pan to use. However, there are no societies without the concept of property. You will never find one, no matter how hard you look.



Are you really claiming that theft and lying are disapproved in all societies.
Yes.


We give awards to people for the quality of their lies. We have festivals in honour of lies.
Fictional stories that advertise as such are not lies. We punish and scorn liars in every society.


Cattle/horse raiding and wife stealing are just a couple of the examples. And please, none of this "it's not theft if the society approves of it" or "the targets aren't part of the society so it isn't theft" crap. That's just circular reasoning - if it runs contary to my argument it's not actually theft.

No, this is part of human nature. Cattle/horse/wife stealing is forbidden in every society (within that society, not from its enemies). It is not circular; just try to find me a society where I am permitted to steal a horse from someone else within the same society. I can easily imagine such a hypothetical society, but it doesn't exist because of human nature.



You are forced to pay taxes at threat of impeisonment and/or injury for services you haven't asked for. This is extortion, whether you approve of it or not. That is the tradition of taxation. You're doing the old "I approve of it so it can't be the type of activity I disapprove of". I see the same thing with definitions of terrorism in political forums.
This one I actually get to be circular. Extortion is by definition only illegal demands. Also, fundamentally, people treat a long-established tradition of taxation very differently than new demands. You can argue the good/evil bit (perhaps a long-existing tax may still be evil), but as far as law/chaos goes, there is a clear difference between a duty that has long existed and a new and capricious demand for money at spearpoint.

JaxGaret
2009-05-03, 10:51 PM
Well now, it can certainly be Neutral too - particularly petty theft like shoplifting:

Abuse of the "Take a Penny, Leave a Penny" system is also a Neutral act :smalltongue:

Neutral persons can participate in Chaotic actions and still remain Neutral. It's not like a person who is Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis always does only Neutral things; they do many Lawful and Chaotic things. Stealing is one of the Chaotic things they may do.


theft of property requires the concept of property. :smallbiggrin:

That's exactly why stealing is Chaotic. If it's stealing, the person doing the stealing acknowledges that they are taking someone else's property. If it's not stealing, then it's not stealing - it's something else.


And - a quibble - while unlawful theft is not-Lawful, lawful theft would be. After all, the government is allowed to steal your money if it was gained by criminal means, and the bank is allowed to steal your house if you refuse to abandon it after it has been foreclosed.

There is no such thing as "Lawful" theft. If it's by the Law, it's not theft, because ownership of the property has changed hands before it was ever relocated.

Trizap
2009-05-03, 11:55 PM
Chaotic: hmm. this police man found out I was the one that stole that bread to feed myself, oh well I just distract/trick him or something and run away.

how to get painting supplies when you have no money: go around, stealthily stuff the supplies when no one is looking, hey no one will know, they will probably just think they lost it or something

should I tell my friend Lizzie, who is in love with Bob, who is in a relationship with Alice, that Bob is already taken? furthermore should I tell Alice about the possible competition? nah. I'll sit back and watch, its more entertaining this way, and Bob and Alice will probably stay together anyways

hmmmmmmmm.......... go inside the building and check if the big bad guy is dead or detonate these explosives just to make sure he doesn't survive and run as fast you can, calling it a day?......well time to make this place go boom! *click*

Evil: gah, an annoying cop found out I stole that valuable art sculpture, as well as all those jewels, time for him to die.

I need an evil doomsday weapon, I must kidnap a bunch of engineer and scientists families, then threaten that said families will die so that they will work for me to build it

stupid Alice, taking Bob away from me, I'll poison her then use my hypno-way to make him my husband!

hrm, the hero is under a bunch of wreckage. now I'll go kill all his sidekicks and loved ones so that he will be alone and can't use his power of friendship against me if he survived, I will then surround him and cruelly kill him in the most vile way possible

see the difference?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-04, 02:05 AM
Neutral persons can participate in Chaotic actions and still remain Neutral. It's not like a person who is Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis always does only Neutral things; they do many Lawful and Chaotic things. Stealing is one of the Chaotic things they may do.
I think that is going to carve things a bit too finely - does this mean that any law/convention breaking is immediately Chaotic? Is Jaywalking Chaotic?

There needs to be a middle ground here. Sure for some things, like lying, have to always be Chaotic because it goes against the clear tenet of "tell the truth;" but breaking a law/convention falls into a bit of a murkier area - Lawful means you "respect authority [and] honor tradition" not that you always follow them.

Plus, with intent being important, I find it hard to believe that minor, perhaps unconscious, lawbreaking is inherently Chaotic. I mean, look at the definition of Neutral:

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
It is not just that Neutral people are diffident when it comes to following the law; the Neutral perspective is to have a "normal" respect for authority, which means neither blindly following nor blindly rejecting the law. A Chaotic breach of tradition is one that openly flaunts it - like intentionally jaywalking in front of a hard-ass cop - while a Neutral breach is going to be a minor offense (like speeding or jaywalking) that, while certainly not-Lawful isn't going to raise much of an eyebrow even if a Lawful character did it.

As for theft, I was going for the less circular definition of "to take by deception or force" - otherwise, what would you call a legal taking by deception or force? "Seizure" is a legal term that is used in both Lawful and Unlawful situations, and it is the closest alternative term I can think of.

That said, it was a quibble - obviously most people don't consider government seizure of property as theft; though I can tell you that, from a legal perspective, "theft" can be a terribly difficult term to define. For instance, is it theft if somebody takes title to your land without your knowledge? If so, then Adverse Possession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession) is almost certainly Legal theft - unless you have a different term for such an action? :smalltongue:

JaxGaret
2009-05-04, 03:09 AM
I think that is going to carve things a bit too finely - does this mean that any law/convention breaking is immediately Chaotic? Is Jaywalking Chaotic?

There needs to be a middle ground here. Sure for some things, like lying, have to always be Chaotic because it goes against the clear tenet of "tell the truth;" but breaking a law/convention falls into a bit of a murkier area - Lawful means you "respect authority [and] honor tradition" not that you always follow them.

Plus, with intent being important, I find it hard to believe that minor, perhaps unconscious, lawbreaking is inherently Chaotic. I mean, look at the definition of Neutral:

It is not just that Neutral people are diffident when it comes to following the law; the Neutral perspective is to have a "normal" respect for authority, which means neither blindly following nor blindly rejecting the law. A Chaotic breach of tradition is one that openly flaunts it - like intentionally jaywalking in front of a hard-ass cop - while a Neutral breach is going to be a minor offense (like speeding or jaywalking) that, while certainly not-Lawful isn't going to raise much of an eyebrow even if a Lawful character did it.

Like I stated before, simply because someone is Neutral does not mean that everything they do is Neutral. A Neutral person sometimes obeys (Lawful) and sometimes rebels (Chaotic).

Speeding most certainly is a Chaotic action. Jaywalking is so widely accepted by society at large that it really ceases to be a part of law & order.


As for theft, I was going for the less circular definition of "to take by deception or force" - otherwise, what would you call a legal taking by deception or force? "Seizure" is a legal term that is used in both Lawful and Unlawful situations, and it is the closest alternative term I can think of.

That said, it was a quibble - obviously most people don't consider government seizure of property as theft; though I can tell you that, from a legal perspective, "theft" can be a terribly difficult term to define. For instance, is it theft if somebody takes title to your land without your knowledge? If so, then Adverse Possession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession) is almost certainly Legal theft - unless you have a different term for such an action? :smalltongue:

First of all, if it's Lawful seizure (you can use any term for it you like. Seizure is fine. Appropriation. Repossession. etc.), then it won't be by deception, since by definition deceitful seizure is Chaotic, so that's out. Simply taking something by force doesn't make it theft.

Theft is the taking of someone's property without legally obtaining it. Simple as that. If it's not property, it's not theft, and if it's obtained legally, it's not theft.

Stephen_E
2009-05-04, 07:06 AM
You are simply incorrect here. Regents may only act in their liege's interests. When they cease to do so, they lose all authority. There is the end of story.

<Checks definition of Regent> Nope, no such clause. There is ussually a council that checks a Regents power and can haul him up if they feel he isn't acting in the Realms best interests, or in the case of regency for a child, in the best interests of raising the child into a ruler. Note the council would have to make a decision against the Regent before the regent lost authority. Regardless one could easily claim that John was looking after Richards safty by keeping him safely imprisoned rather than risking him beem killed in some pointless battle in Palestine. Unless you can point to some clause from the document giving Prince John his regency I'm going to have to assume you're applying wishful thinking rather than actual law.


Furthermore, betrayers do not have authority. For example, murder of a king makes one ineligible for succession.

What world have you been living in? Murder of a King was one method of suceeding him,. A regretably common way.


You would claim that if the King goes hunting, and puts me in charge "while he is away from the castle", and I then order his guards to bind him and gag him and keep him away from the castle, that they should obey me (since I am in charge while he is away). That is risible.

Yes, your scenario is risible. You are asking them to act against their king. Unless you've already planned the coup it will just get you tortured and executed, or if you're indredibly lucky exiled for life. If you already have a conspiracy going and the guards are in it, then it's a workable plan. The theory was you didn't make someone Regent unless you trusted them and/or you had some other power group to keep him honest. Otherwise they could and di get up to all sorts of shenanigans on the same principle as treason. So long as you suceed it's legitimate.




If you're just going by the PHB, then "trustworthiness" goes in Lawful (and thus untrustworthiness in Chaotic). Lying and Stealing are untrustworthy.

Read again. The PHB say Law implys trustwortheness. As I pointed out in a previous post "Implys" =/= "equals".
Also say one alignment involves something doesn't automatically mean that the other alignment means the reverse off it (a tenadancy is common, but only a tendancy). Also Lying and Stealing =/= untrustworthy. Do you consider all CIA field operatives unyrustworthy. Do you consider police untrustworthy (IIRC in the US they are allowed to, and frequently do, lie to suspects when interogating them).



[/quote]Stories that admit to being stories are not lies, truths, or anything communicative of facts. They are something else entirely (and have nothing to do with alignment).[/quote]

Again you're simply incorrect. Lying is making an intentionally false statement. That's what both my dictionaries say. Stories are intentionally false staments. There is no requirement of malice or intent to deceive.



There can certainly be a sense of property without theft. When I decide whether to use my pan or yours, even if we would never dream of stealing, we still know which pan to use. However, there are no societies without the concept of property. You will never find one, no matter how hard you look.

To have "property" you have to have a sense of "mine not yours". I don't know of any society which has such a sense of property without also having theft. This suggests the two concepts are linked. As for societies with out a concept of property (or at least personal ownership of property, which is required for theft) while I'm no anthropologist I do recall coming across mentions of societies with no concept of personal ownership, or at least nothing western society would recognise. Are you an expert anthropologist, or more personal ethics/morality as fact.




Are you really claiming that theft and lying are disapproved in all societies.


Yes.


Fictional stories that advertise as such are not lies. We punish and scorn liars in every society.

As I've shown fictional stories are lies. Societies only punish and scorn lying that they disapprove of. And only then in societies that I know of well (unlike you I don't make claims for every society that has ever been or ever will be),



Cattle/horse raiding and wife stealing are just a couple of the examples. And please, none of this "it's not theft if the society approves of it" or "the targets aren't part of the society so it isn't theft" crap. That's just circular reasoning - if it runs contary to my argument it's not actually theft.



No, this is part of human nature. Cattle/horse/wife stealing is forbidden in every society (within that society, not from its enemies). It is not circular; just try to find me a society where I am permitted to steal a horse from someone else within the same society. I can easily imagine such a hypothetical society, but it doesn't exist because of human nature.

Again you're mistaken. There have been many societies where livestock and eife theft between comunities within the society were a form of proving manhood ect. I suspect you're mistaking different communities within a society as different societies.


This one I actually get to be circular. Extortion is by definition only illegal demands. Also, fundamentally, people treat a long-established tradition of taxation very differently than new demands. You can argue the good/evil bit (perhaps a long-existing tax may still be evil), but as far as law/chaos goes, there is a clear difference between a duty that has long existed and a new and capricious demand for money at spearpoint.

<cheacks dictionaries again> Nope, extortion doesn't require any illegality. Ro extort is to get by force or the treat of force (extortion is the process of extorting). As a sub-definition one does mention illegal exaction. As a suggestion when arguing about the meanings of words it is handy to check the dictionary. In the past I've found myself ( as hopefully you've now realised with yourself) that what I thought was the meaning of words was incorrect in some way. Usually not by much, but enough to be crucial when specific definitioons are been argued.

Stephen E

Riffington
2009-05-04, 08:44 AM
<Checks definition of Regent> Nope, no such clause...

What world have you been living in? Murder of a King was one method of suceeding him,. A regretably common way.
These are part of Natural Law, and are not found in a dictionary, but rather in every encyclopedia of Natural Law, Common Law, and Religious Law related to succession. I will skip the religious ones due to Forum Rules, but here is stated a secular version:

"In all lawful governments the designation of the persons who are to bear rule being as natural and necessary a part as the form of the government itself, and that which had its establishment originally from the people- the anarchy being much alike, to have no form of government at all, or to agree that it shall be monarchical, yet appoint no way to design the person that shall have the power and be the monarch- all commonwealths, therefore, with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing and conveying the right to those who are to have any share in the public authority; and whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power by other ways than what the laws of the community have prescribed hath no right to be obeyed, though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved, since he is not the person the laws have appointed, and, consequently, not the person the people have consented to. Nor can such an usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title till the people are both at liberty to consent, and have actually consented, to allow and confirm in him the power he hath till then usurped."

The Catholic doctrine would of course be the relevant one, and again due to forum rules I will not post it - but murderers do not get to succeed a King. Conquerors do, but that's a different thing entirely.



Read again. The PHB say Law implys trustwortheness. As I pointed out in a previous post "Implys" =/= "equals".
You repeat this foolishness. You insist on going by PHB and then ignoring it.


Do you consider all CIA field operatives unyrustworthy.
The majority of CIA field operatives never lie or steal. Those that do, only do so to the enemy nations and only under very specific situations. If they lie to their boss, or steal from Americans, they are highly untrustworthy - and are punished if discovered.




me: Stories that admit to being stories are not lies, truths, or anything communicative of facts. They are something else entirely (and have nothing to do with alignment).

Stephen: Again you're simply incorrect. Lying is making an intentionally false statement. That's what both my dictionaries say. Stories are intentionally false statements. There is no requirement of malice or intent to deceive.


Dude, really? Free Online: "1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."
Webster: 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression




To have "property" you have to have a sense of "mine not yours". I don't know of any society which has such a sense of property without also having theft.
It is true that every society has theft, because it is human nature to sometimes steal. Logically, however, you need a notion of property for theft to be possible, whereas property can logically exist even if theft were wiped out. If you really believe that property cannot exist if theft were eliminated, explain why.



As I've shown fictional stories are lies.
No. No you haven't.





I suspect you're mistaking different communities within a society as different societies.
I'm not sure I understand this distinction. Do you mean that in some sense we are all human and thus all part of a global society? The distinction that I'm making is that when it comes to law/chaos (not when it comes to good/evil) we can divide ourselves into groups and employ different rules for different groups. We can say "beating a slave is ok, but if you hit a white man you will face charges." Dehumanizing slaves/other tribes/tourists/whatever is a common trick that has some relevance to law/chaos.




<cheacks dictionaries again> Nope, extortion doesn't require any illegality.
Black's Law Dictionary (the only one that matters): the obtaining of property from another induced by <b>wrongful</b> use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. (note that extortion under color of official right is further defined that it is not due to him or his office)
Britannica: <b>Unlawful</b> exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority
Free Online: <b>Illegal</b> use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
Webster: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or </b> illegal</b> power

I'm not sure what dictionaries you are using, but I think you should consider upgrading.

Je dit Viola
2009-05-05, 12:47 AM
Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?

Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.

We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back.

There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.
(bolding added)

So:1. Cool it. Nearly every (logical) definition about law vs chaos can fit.
2. They're not contradictory. Not even opposites, by their defenitions, though they seem to be at first look.
3. Instead of arguing about how the other person's definition is wrong, how about we talk about what our personal defenition is?
4. Besides...this is a Chaotic vs Evil thread, not a Chaotic vs Lawful thread

Okay...to start it back on track,
My super-short definiton of Chaotic is: Valuing freedom.

My super-short definition of Evil is: Valuing Self.

My "" of Lawful is: Valuing honor.

"" Good is: Valuing others.

As none of these contradict each other Period (why did I write period? I could have just used a .)

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-06, 10:12 PM
There needs to be a middle ground here.
I think that maybe the problem is that JaxGaret is using "Chaotic" to mean somewhere on the Chaotic side of the midpoint of the Law/Chaos axis, and you're using it to mean somewhere in the middle third of the axis.

And if that's the case, I agree with both of you. :smallwink:

I would call such things mildly Chaotic, not Neutral, personally.


The Web Comic: Dominic Deegan disagrees: they say it can be good. The alternative is she would be killed.
Not saying I agree with that idea, but there you go.
As I once saw it put: Would you torture a puppy if doing so would permanently eliminate and prevent any and all bizarre hypothetical moral dilemmas?

Assume the puppy to be both innocent and adorable.


Righttt. Ambigously this and ambigously that proves...... nothing much. Compelling evidence indeed.
OK, then, let me put it this way:

Honor and D&D Law are the same concept, down to being annoyingly vague in exactly the same ways.

Prove me wrong.


Law can mean a lot more than "honest" or "compliant", neither words been used in the general law description.
They're what you get when you boil most of the overly specific stuff down:

Honest: "tell the truth", "keep their word", "trustworthiness", "reliability"
Compliant: "respect authority", "honor tradition", "honor", "obedience to authority"
Left over: "judge those who fall short of their duties"


As for wanting each axis to be about one thing. That's all very nice but completely unsupported by the PHB in which each axis clearly covers a broad swath (whether intentionally or because the designers could agree I don't know).
Well, yeah, but that sucks, because it leaves plenty of perfectly reasonable characters without alignments. There is nothing contradictory about an honest, eccentric libertarian who is as opposed to fraud as he is to coercion. But he's not Lawful because he doesn't respect authority nor honor tradition, he's not Chaotic because he keeps his word no matter how he feels... and he's not Neutral, because he lacks normal respect for authority and can't be tempted into lying or deceiving others!

So, what then? He just doesn't have an alignment? He's not allowed to exist in D&D? What?

I'd prefer for every person to have one place somewhere on the alignment grid, because that way alignment actually works. It's clearly not intended to allow for someone who's not Lawful, Neutral, nor Chaotic, nor for someone who's both Good and Evil, yet that's what you get with a direct application of the PHB's alignment descriptions to various beings. Alignment needs to be modified in order to function remotely like it was pretty clearly intended to function, with each individual having exactly one alignment.

The problem is that people often modify the alignment system in their heads without discussion, with the assumption that pretty much everyone else has the same understanding of how alignment is supposed to work, when in actuality there is of course no way in hell.

Harperfan7
2009-05-06, 10:27 PM
Well, yeah, but that sucks, because it leaves plenty of perfectly reasonable characters without alignments. There is nothing contradictory about an honest, eccentric libertarian who is as opposed to fraud as he is to coercion. But he's not Lawful because he doesn't respect authority nor honor tradition, he's not Chaotic because he keeps his word no matter how he feels... and he's not Neutral, because he lacks normal respect for authority and can't be tempted into lying or deceiving others!

So, what then? He just doesn't have an alignment? He's not allowed to exist in D&D? What?

I'd prefer for every person to have one place somewhere on the alignment grid, because that way alignment actually works. It's clearly not intended to allow for someone who's not Lawful, Neutral, nor Chaotic, nor for someone who's both Good and Evil, yet that's what you get with a direct application of the PHB's alignment descriptions to various beings. Alignment needs to be modified in order to function remotely like it was pretty clearly intended to function, with each individual having exactly one alignment.


That guy is pretty much neutral. His is not lawful or chaotic enough to not be neutral. If you have some lawful and some chaotic, but about equal amounts of both, you are neutral. Same with good and evil. You don't have to be dedicated to neutrality to be neutral, there is the whole "undecided" thing.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-06, 10:44 PM
But, see, he doesn't have roughly equal amounts of opposing, opposite traits. He has roughly equal amounts of traits that are treated as being opposing opposites, although they in no way actually are.

What I object to is that that's dumb, dammit. Behaviors and personality traits should be grouped together based on what they have in common. You shouldn't take logically unrelated things and stick them together because you, like, feel like it, or something. That's bad taxonomy.

Edit: Alignment is hardly unique in the way that it conflates different properties, mind you. There are other categories that "work" the same way: Look at the Left/Right political axis, for example, which lumps together positions on different issues although they really do not imply each other.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-06, 10:51 PM
But, see, he doesn't have roughly equal amounts of opposing, opposite traits. He has roughly equal amounts of traits that are treated as being opposing opposites, although they in no way actually are.
No... there isn't a question of equations here, it's a question of dedication.

The librarian is neither dedicated enough to the principles that Law represents, nor to the principles that Chaos represents, to be considered either. This is, after all, why the vast majority of humanity is considered "Neutral" - they have other things they worry about more than Law & Chaos, or Good & Evil.

Part of the purpose of the alignment system is to encourage heroes who do have such dedications; being dedicated to Good or Evil can make you a larger-than-life individual. D&D is a game about Heroic Fantasy, and in that genre you generally see people who swear a blood oath to find their father's killer, or someone who thumbs his nose at The Man at every opportunity and finds his own path.

EDIT:

N.B. This is not to say the Librarian is not dedicated to something, merely that he is not dedicated to the ideals represented by either Law or Chaos. In fact, a common characterization of Neutral characters is that they are gripped by some other enthusiasm that makes Good & Evil, Law & Chaos largely irrelevant.

...not to start an OotS argument, but Vaarsuvius was an excellent example of that kind of individual - which is now played to an extreme position for that alignment, bordering on Evil.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-06, 11:28 PM
No... there isn't a question of equations here, it's a question of dedication.
What, the guy I described can't be dedicated to fighting tyranny and deceit? (One could easily see the two as going hand and hand.)

... It looks like you may have misread "libertarian" as "librarian", and thus possibly imagined a meeker character than I intended.


This is, after all, why the vast majority of humanity is considered "Neutral" - they have other things they worry about more than Law & Chaos, or Good & Evil.
Well, in 3E, humans were said to have no alignment tendency, even towards Neutrality. I think that most normal people are Unaligned in 4E, though. And there does seem to be a consensus on this forum that most people are Neutral, though I don't know if it's a majority consensus...

I'd say that at least a plurality of humans are Neutral, probably. "Often Neutral", rather than just "Any".


Part of the purpose of the alignment system is to encourage heroes who do have such dedications; being dedicated to Good or Evil can make you a larger-than-life individual.
If by that you mean an unrealistically extreme embodiment of a particular abstraction, then yes. But I'd prefer not to actively encourage the creation of Stupid Evil characters who hurt others for no reason than to be eeeeeeeevil. I'm guessing that there's pretty much no one like that in real life. Some twisted individuals may hurt others for fun, but even then not "because it's evil, and so am I."


N.B. This is not to say the Librarian is not dedicated to something, merely that he is not dedicated to the ideals represented by either Law or Chaos.
I thought that Law represented dedication to truth (amongst other unrelated things), and Chaos represented dedication to freedom. Well, the guy I mentioned love both of those, I am now decreeing. Truth, freedom, and the Brelish way, or something. Yeah.


In fact, a common characterization of Neutral characters is that they are gripped by some other enthusiasm that makes Good & Evil, Law & Chaos largely irrelevant.
Love! Knowledge! Nature! Magic! Art! Inner peace! Et cetera!

Um, I mean, I concur.


...not to start an OotS argument, but Vaarsuvius was an excellent example of that kind of individual - which is now played to an extreme position for that alignment, bordering on Evil.
Eh, V's trying to save the world*, and hasn't really done anything more Evil than what adventurers typically do.

... yet.

*"My god, I can't let them destroy the world! That's where I keep all my stuff! :smalleek:"

TheCountAlucard
2009-05-06, 11:41 PM
Eh, V's trying to save the world, and hasn't really done anything more Evil than what adventurers typically do.Willingly consorting with fiends, reanimating a fallen foe in order to torture it, and genociding an entire race of creatures doesn't quite sound like typical adventurer behavior. Perhaps I'm hanging out with the wrong adventurers. :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-07, 02:27 AM
I thought that Law represented dedication to truth (amongst other unrelated things), and Chaos represented dedication to freedom. Well, the guy I mentioned love both of those, I am now decreeing. Truth, freedom, and the Brelish way, or something. Yeah.
Ah yes, I misread that.

Anyhoo, you can be dedicated to The Truth (as you see it) or in following the strictures of society. This is why CG are often depicted as freedom fighters - they pursue a Truth that they believe themselves, regardless of what society says.

A Libertarian that is dedicated to following the Rule of Law and sticking within society's mores isn't much of a libertarian :smalltongue:

For reference:

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

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

If your Libertarian always tells the truth because he thinks it is the best policy for life, then good for him - but it is a personal conviction, not binding oneself to the greater principles of Society.

As (I think) I said before - lying is an inherently not-Lawful act, but telling the truth is hardly not-Chaotic; if it were, all Chaotic characters would be compelled to lie unless there was a highly compelling reason to tell the truth.