PDA

View Full Version : Rewording Alignment



imp_fireball
2009-08-21, 01:59 AM
Lawful Good

Lawful Good is the epitome of order for the good that order brings. The avatar of lawful goodness is the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, having absolute faith in the possibility of moral rightness that law can bring, but lacking faith in humanity, in that chaos, if left unchecked will eventually dissolve mankind's higher values. Ultimate Lawful Goods ultimately believe in this way that mankind as a species, is incapable of moral rightness without system. At the same time, Lawful Goods still embrace emotion and only some are stoic, calculating and cold.

Neutral Good

While Neutral Evil reaps death and rape wherever it can while attempting to remain on top, Neutral Good upholds good wherever it can, using whatever is most conveniently at hand. The avatar of Neutral Good is the messiah, who intends to bring salvation to the human race by placing everything in perfect harmony. Some neutral goods believe in utopia while others scoff at it being an impossibility. Charitable organizations are often neutral good.

Chaotic Good

Independent upholders of good. The avatar of chaotic good is the well intentioned activist, opposing law whenever it appears less than fitting in their minds. Chaotic Goods can have strong opinions and offer a voice of moral reason amongst the throng of other individualists.

Lawful Neutral

Calculating and efficient, Lawful Neutrals believe in order for the sake of convenience and what peace offers, however many also believe that a moral upper hand can confuse things. Good examples of Lawful Neutrals are technocrats and atheist lawyers. The technocrat studies hard to achieve their status, lavishing in what a meritocratic system offers them and work hard to maintain a state of efficiency in their lives. The atheist lawyer opposes moral standards because he believes that they have no place in law and that, on a certain level, they can translate into bias. The judge and computer are both avatars of lawful neutrality, the judge using a fact based legal system of strong evidence to convict and sentence as they deem fitting and the computer running with information by the books in as efficient a way as possible.

True Neutral

A true neutral is rare in modern society, because the consistent stream media often encourages opinion, whether or not that opinion flows with the masses or not. The avatar of true neutrality is nature itself. Perhaps the best example is the sage, preferring to keep everything in balance. True Neutrals lack the individualistic passion of chaotic neutrals and the efficiency of lawful neutrals and are perhaps as such, few for that reason. Some true neutrals are nihilists while others believe in nothing, caring not for the external matters of the world and only worrying about themselves and those close to them when necessary.

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutrality represents the mind of the rabid individualist. Chaotic Neutrality struggles to remain absolute and permanent. It is a volatile energy that can swing either way. Often times, it opposes system and can be irritated by little things. The avatar of chaotic neutrality is the teenager. The teenager opposes that which limits their aim and satisfaction in life, while at the same time struggling to find themselves. Chaotic Neutrals are also the most unique and while they can easily spawn, they are also quickly removed by the more grounded alignments in the world. The anti hero is a great example of chaotic neutrality, because for all its flaws, it provides a unique outlook on how to get the job done; unlimited as such by society or moral grounds, while at the same time opting not to commit to unnecessary cruelty.

Lawful Evil

Lawful Evils despise disorder. Most have a desire to lead if they have a chance and in a way they deem fit. Lawful Evils often struggle to work together due to the complexity of power distribution and conflicting ideologies. The avatar of Lawful Evil is the emperor. The emperor will slay his enemies in great number and order a genocide at a whim, but prefer to keep his own city streets clean because things work out better that way. A great example of conflicting Lawful Evils is what occurs in the movie 'Goodfellas', where former companions are slain due to distrust within the organization (and power distribution), until only a scant few remain.

Neutral Evil

The Neutral Evil commits to evil whenever they have the chance, using whatever is most available and convenient to them. The avatar of Neutral Evil is horror manifest. A good example of a Neutral Evil is a dirty warlord. The warlord imposes order to keep himself in power while at the same time lavishing in the brutality committed by his soldiers and himself. Neutral evils are far and few between, as most human beings are unable to maintain this state of mind for very long without swinging to either law or chaos (most often chaos, depending on what psychological help they receive). Only the truly strong minded can remain neutral evil and effective, and often earn a reputation of great infamy in history. A notable Neutral Evil is Genghis Khan.

Chaotic Evil

Chaotic Evils don't necessarily love destruction and disarray, but their ideologies, and sometimes mere presence, whether they're aware of it or not, can cause it. The spoiled brat is a good example of a Chaotic Evil, willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants and the attention he deserves while at the same time despising order since that means rules (and rules aren't fun!). The serial killer murders indiscriminately, the most horrifying aspect of them being that a part of them is still sane. The bloody anarchist murders the priest because he adamantly believes that the man is 'brainwashing the masses' without leaving the matter open to debate. Other Chaotic Evils hate the world and what they've been through in life but are too afraid to die off.

Skorj
2009-08-21, 02:33 AM
What's your goal here? Examples of particular alignments are fine, but you've listed few and narrow ways to play.

Here's my alignment descriptions. They are extremely simple. Good v Evil is only about valuing life. Law v Chaos is only about whether you do the right thing when no one is watching.

Good: tries to avoid killing to achieve his goals. Values the lives of friends and strangers alike. Even values the lives of enemies (but not to a stupid extent).

Neutral: Values the live of friends, but only values the lives of strangers in the abstract, and thinks it's desirable for enemies to die.

Evil: just doesn't care how many have to die to achieve his goal. Still has friends, but even their lives are quite secondary to his own.

Lawful: does the right thing (by the values of the society he grew up in), even when no one is watching. Respects authority whenever doing so doesn't strongly conflict with his values.

Neutral: does the right thing when someone is watching. Respects authority only for its power to punish.

Chaotic: always has an excuse to do the wrong thing. Disrespects authority whenever doing so doesn't strongly conflict with his values.

That's it. Anything more complicated or strict is IMO just one way to play an alignment.

erikun
2009-08-21, 02:33 AM
Is this supposed to be critiqued? If not, ignore the spoiler tag.

While these are good extremes and make excellent descriptions for their appropriate Outsiders, I can't see what you describe as working for humanity in general (or player characters in particular).

Your Lawful Good would kill off anything chaotic, even CG, because "left unchecked will eventually dissolve mankind's higher values" - this, despite the rather moral CG elves wandering around.

Chaotic Good "opposing law whenever it appears," including LG churches which seek laws against bandits and feeling the homeless.

Neutral Evil is almost the description of Stupid Evil: "commits to evil whenever they have the chance, using whatever is most available and convenient to them." Someone who hacks off a guard's head just because they can and because they can get away with it is about as Stupid Evil as it gets.

To be honest, I cannot think of one single character that I have ever played which fits into any of your nine alignments. :smallfrown: When something like that happens, I begin to seriously question just how accurate such a system is.

Jack_Banzai
2009-08-21, 03:25 AM
Even if you despise 4e, you might want to have a look at the alignments described within. I find them a refreshing change from the usual.

Johel
2009-08-21, 04:15 AM
I feel what could be the seed of a potential "Alignment War" here.
*Go get some popcorns*

blazinghand
2009-08-21, 04:34 AM
Good and Evil I find are relatively easy to work out. Law and Chaos are a bit more complicated.

Depending on who you are, Law and Chaos are a means to an end. The CG Bard and the LG Fighter could get along because they are both good, and although they think in different ways, they have a common goal.

Or it could be the other way around. Mabe the CG Bard could hate the LG Fighter for his oppressive and traditional nature, whereas the Fighter could feel threatened by the Bard's unattached and dangerously free way of life. Perhaps an LG Fighter cares more about order than good. Perhaps a system that overlooks some injustice is better than no system at all. Or, perhaps the LG Fighter is willing to set aside his need for order and organization for a good that he believes to be more important.

What I find is that a character's personality and outlook are not a function of his alignment, but rather the opposite-- that his alignment is a function of his personality and outlook. Most of the time, when I make a character, I just put down an alignment of NG and forget about it for a few sessions. Once I've gotten more into the development of who I am and what I believe, I put down a corrected alignment.


Edit: I got a bit off track there. Basically, alignment is subsidiary to character, so I don't feel any need to reword alignments. Your wordings seem otherwise fine, though your LG is a bit heavy on the L.

Fitz10019
2009-08-21, 05:56 AM
I agree with Skorj's approach to define each of the six aspects (rather than the 9 combinations), but not his specific definitions.

I always interpret Lawful as simply the opposite of Chaotic. For me, Lawful is better described as Orderly or Systematic. A lawful character wants life to be structured by rules and agreements for the sake of smoothly running predictability. Predictability is a source of comfort to the Lawful.

A chaotic character resents predictability and sees rules and systems as dishonest facades. He wants to know the truth behind the facade, and will often disrupt a system to see what emerges.

A neutral character will simply navigate a system, indifferent to it's existence beyond his ability to get what he wants from it, or disrupt the system if necessary for his needs.

Edit: Now I'm tempted to activate my "Letter Man" powers and start a thread called "Rewarding Alignment" hmmm...

pita
2009-08-21, 06:30 AM
I've already exchanged the alignment system with one based on MTG colors, which make more sense IMO. Nobody would define themselves as Chaotic Evil, but people will agree to the Black/Red philosophy.
However, I would say that the difference between lawful and chaotic characters is the method they use.
Lawful characters don't look at the end result, they look at how you did it. If you did something with all of the proper ways, that something, in Lawful eyes, can't be evil. A lawful good character is Batman, for instance, who believes in the proper ways, even at the expense of later lives. His life and many others would be much more simple if he just shot The Joker, but he has his morals and would never compromise on them. A lawful evil character would be David from Animorphs. He has his own morals, which he would never break, but he finds loopholes in them to abuse (Won't kill humans, but will kill any animal, including those that are humans in animal form). A lawful evil character is the guy who would follow the letter of the law while destroying all spirit of it. A lawful neutral part of society is bureaucracy, in which people just need to use the correct method to achieve what they need.
Chaotic characters, on the other hand, are all about the end product. Ax, from Animorphs, would do an act he knows everyone would object to, because it would help the right cause. He knows it'll cause a lot of death and that his leader would tell him not to do it, but he does it because he knows that, at the end of the day, it would be better to commit this crime than to allow a bigger one to happen. A chaotic evil character would be Light Yagami, who betrays his morals for his goal. A chaotic neutral element of society is the free market, in which people use many different methods to get to the same goal.
Neutral characters on the lawful-chaotic axis value both method and goal equally. A neutral good character is someone like the UN, if you want to go into real life. The UN wants to help the world, but will only use the right methods and will only act when the goal can be achieved by those methods. A neutral evil character is The Joker, for whom the diabolical methods are more than just a process. They're part of the reason he does his evil, just as important as the final goal.
Note the problems in my method, which have led me to go to the MTG color system.
1: With chaotic characters, alignment matters slightly less, as their methods are pretty much the same. Chaotic Evil characters will lose sight of their goal a little more than chaotic good characters, because they are not likely to realize they've lost sight of their goal. Lawful characters, on the other hand, are completely defined by their alignment. It's easy to see an alliance of Chaotic creatures of different alignments, hard to find one of Lawful. This is generally contrary to the intents, in which Lawful characters work better in groups than Chaotic ones.
2: This system also means that chaotic characters are more likely to be leaders than Lawful ones. Again, this goes contrary to the intent of the rules.
3: There are probably a few more, but I don't remember them.
EDIT- Guides to MTG colors, for those who don't know them but want to see my method:
White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr57)
Interview with White (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/7)
Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr84)
Interview with Blue (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/13)
Black (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr109)
Interview with Black (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/9)
Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr133)
Interview with Red (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/15)
Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr43)
Interview with Green (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/11)
White/Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr226)
Blue/Black (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr201)
Black/Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr241)
Red/Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr213)
Green/White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr196)
White/Black (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr221)
Black/Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr199)
Green/Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr229)
Blue/Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr217)
Red/White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr205)
Colorless (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr165)
Those were surprisingly hard to find...

Hijax
2009-08-21, 07:09 AM
A lawful evil character is the guy who would follow the letter of the law while destroying all spirit of it.

You mean like a powergamer? :smallamused:

pita
2009-08-21, 07:12 AM
You mean like a powergamer? :smallamused:

That makes sense, I guess. Goddamn munchkins.

Hijax
2009-08-21, 07:13 AM
Munchkinism has its fun, you just need to remember not to take all the **** into regular games.

Kris Strife
2009-08-21, 07:15 AM
Chaotic Good "opposing law whenever it appears," including LG churches which seek laws against bandits and feeling the homeless.

Um... Not sure how lawful or good a church that encouraged feeling up homeless people would be... :smalltongue:

pita
2009-08-21, 07:16 AM
It depends on whether the homeless are children or not. Remember, sex with adult males is wrong. Little boys are awesome!

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-21, 08:03 AM
I agree with Skorj's approach to define each of the six aspects (rather than the 9 combinations), but not his specific definitions.


You mean like a powergamer? :smallamused:

Hmm...

Lawful Good: Optimizer. He does what he can within constraints to build a great character. He finds that limits enhance his creativity, and he builds to the power level of the group to ensure that everyone's even.

Neutral Good: Casual Gamer. She's here mostly to have fun. As long as she's having fun, and everyone else is having fun, she's happy.

Chaotic Good: Actor. He likes to explore the world and get in character, and his motto is "What would [character] do?" He does what he can to ensure other PCs get their "screen time" as well.

Lawful Neutral: Rules Lawyer. This guy cares about RAW more than anything else. Whether rulings favor PCs or the DM, whether rulings are a bit off or far off, it doesn't matter; he just wants to make sure the rules are followed.

True Neutral: Girlfriend. She's here mostly because the DM (or occasionally another player) asked her to show up and try it. She doesn't really know what she wants and participates erratically.

Chaotic Neutral: Escapist. This guy is there to play a half-fiend three-tentacled wacky creature, insult the king to see what happens, and otherwise let off some steam from his daily life and/or be as unrealistic as possible.

Lawful Evil: Munchkin. He stays within the rules, if only by the barest possible adherence to a vague rule, and does his absolute utmost to build the best possible character--personality? What personality?

Neutral Evil: Powergamer. He makes a powerful build and bends his character's personality in favor of getting what's best for the player. He wants to win D&D, and that's all he cares about.

Chaotic Evil: Party-Killer. He just loves causing havoc, and will backstab, steal, and do whatever else to screw up the game that he can.

There you go, a metagame alignment system. Good means you help the party, evil means you hurt the party, and morally neutral means you do a bit of both (intentionally or not). Law means you favor mechanics, chaos means you favor roleplaying, and ethically neutral means you favor both or neither depending on the situation.

Prime32
2009-08-21, 08:15 AM
Hmm...

Lawful Good: Optimizer. He does what he can within constraints to build a great character. He finds that limits enhance his creativity, and he builds to the power level of the group to ensure that everyone's even.

Neutral Good: Casual Gamer. She's here mostly to have fun. As long as she's having fun, and everyone else is having fun, she's happy.

Chaotic Good: Actor. He likes to explore the world and get in character, and his motto is "What would [character] do?" He does what he can to ensure other PCs get their "screen time" as well.

Lawful Neutral: Rules Lawyer. This guy cares about RAW more than anything else. Whether rulings favor PCs or the DM, whether rulings are a bit off or far off, it doesn't matter; he just wants to make sure the rules are followed.

True Neutral: Girlfriend. She's here mostly because the DM (or occasionally another player) asked her to show up and try it. She doesn't really know what she wants and participates erratically.

Chaotic Neutral: Escapist. This guy is there to play a half-fiend three-tentacled wacky creature, insult the king to see what happens, and otherwise let off some steam from his daily life and/or be as unrealistic as possible.

Lawful Evil: Munchkin. He stays within the rules, if only by the barest possible adherence to a vague rule, and does his absolute utmost to build the best possible character--personality? What personality?

Neutral Evil: Powergamer. He makes a powerful build and bends his character's personality in favor of getting what's best for the player. He wants to win D&D, and that's all he cares about.

Chaotic Evil: Party-Killer. He just loves causing havoc, and will backstab, steal, and do whatever else to screw up the game that he can.

There you go, a metagame alignment system. Good means you help the party, evil means you hurt the party, and morally neutral means you do a bit of both (intentionally or not). Law means you favor mechanics, chaos means you favor roleplaying, and ethically neutral means you favor both or neither depending on the situation.

Have a cookie for that, sir. And a slice of pizza.

Typewriter
2009-08-21, 09:54 AM
Don't forget that NE and CE both use third party books.

JaxGaret
2009-08-21, 09:59 AM
A true neutral is rare in modern society

I would go in the opposite direction; more people are TN than any other alignment.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-21, 10:27 AM
Have a cookie for that, sir. And a slice of pizza.

As a matter of fact, in a few minutes I'm going to a lunch meeting where we've ordered pizzas and cookies. I'll save yours for tomorrow. :smallbiggrin:


Don't forget that NE and CE both use third party books.

Not necessarily; homebrew and third-party material can be just as balanced or unbalanced as WotC material, so the various gamer alignments are really independent of what material is used. If third-party stuff is used, however, then yes, NE/CE would deliberately go for the unbalanced material while LG/NG would deliberately go for the more balanced material.

Random832
2009-08-21, 10:33 AM
I would think CE would tend to cheat, whereas LE would find the most convoluted possible interpretation of the rules, and insist on strict RAW.

Civil War Man
2009-08-21, 10:58 AM
If third-party stuff is used, however, then yes, NE/CE would deliberately go for the unbalanced material while LG/NG would deliberately go for the more balanced material.

Meanwhile CG/CN would use whatever material best fits their character concept, regardless of whether it is balanced or not (maybe with CG discriminating slightly on the side of balanced, to avoid overshadowing other party members).

LN/LE would use whatever material gives them the most plusses, with LE probably tending towards more unbalanced since the archetypical LN rules lawyer would reject the most unbalanced options that they feel are intentionally subverting the core rules.

TN uses only the Player's Handbook, because either they don't know third-party stuff exists, or don't want to be bothered reading through several hundred extra pages.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 11:05 AM
I like Dice's version particularly because that CG does so describe me.

I view Chaos versus Law as a question of adherence to external values. For a Chaotic Good person, they are doing something good because it is the right thing in that particular situation, regardless if it can be systematically applied. (So they may appear more arbitrary.) A very intelligent Chaotic can afterwards rationalize and understand why they felt the way they did and acted the way they did, but understanding why is less important than knowing that it is such.

Lawful, on the other hand, seeks to make their actions consistent with an external code - they may have self-applied this code, but they still view it as external. They will not act before having made their actions jive with said code, even if the rationalization is poor.

Chaotics act first and seek forgiveness later if necessary. Lawfuls seek permission first if necessary, then act. This doesn't make either better at decision-making, as that's a function of mental scores, though I always view Chaotics as being inclined to Charisma and Wisdom while Lawfuls go for Intelligence and Wisdom.

warrl
2009-08-21, 11:13 AM
Lawful Neutral

Calculating and efficient, Lawful Neutrals believe in order for the sake of convenience and what peace offers, however many also believe that a moral upper hand can confuse things. Good examples of Lawful Neutrals are technocrats and atheist lawyers. The technocrat studies hard to achieve their status, lavishing in what a meritocratic system offers them and work hard to maintain a state of efficiency in their lives. The atheist lawyer opposes moral standards because he believes that they have no place in law and that, on a certain level, they can translate into bias. The judge and computer are both avatars of lawful neutrality, the judge using a fact based legal system of strong evidence to convict and sentence as they deem fitting and the computer running with information by the books in as efficient a way as possible.

I have never met an atheist who was opposed to moral standards or thought they have no place in law, as a consequence of being an atheist.

(I have met both atheists and theists who think that morals have no place in law, or vice versa.)

There is no conflict between morality and atheism, except in the minds of those who are personally so inherently untrustworthy that they can't imagine a person being moral without a god commanding them to do so.

kamikasei
2009-08-21, 11:21 AM
The atheist lawyer opposes moral standards because he believes that they have no place in law and that, on a certain level, they can translate into bias.

Whoa!

I had completely missed this until warrl's post. What the hell, man?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-21, 12:11 PM
Meanwhile CG/CN would use whatever material best fits their character concept, regardless of whether it is balanced or not (maybe with CG discriminating slightly on the side of balanced, to avoid overshadowing other party members).

LN/LE would use whatever material gives them the most plusses, with LE probably tending towards more unbalanced since the archetypical LN rules lawyer would reject the most unbalanced options that they feel are intentionally subverting the core rules.

TN uses only the Player's Handbook, because either they don't know third-party stuff exists, or don't want to be bothered reading through several hundred extra pages.

CN in particular would definitely search out the monster books (particularly Savage Species) and the alternate magic systems in order to make something weird and new; LN wouldn't necessarily care about balance, as long as it's legal, so for instance they'd probably shoot down a tenuously-justified infinite loop just as fast as they'd veto changing monk's BAB to full. TN would probably not care at all and have someone else make their character--my friend brought his girlfriend to visit on D&D night and she'd heard about Drizzt, so she said "I want to play a good dark elf sorceress" and I made her the character.


I have never met an atheist who was opposed to moral standards or thought they have no place in law, as a consequence of being an atheist.

(I have met both atheists and theists who think that morals have no place in law, or vice versa.)

There is no conflict between morality and atheism, except in the minds of those who are personally so inherently untrustworthy that they can't imagine a person being moral without a god commanding them to do so.

Completely agreed. I hope he was trying to say that a theist would attempt to impose the biases of his particular religion on the law and an atheist wouldn't be tempted to do so (as he wouldn't have a religious bias), but that's not what it ended up as.

Civil War Man
2009-08-21, 12:20 PM
I view Chaos versus Law as a question of adherence to external values. For a Chaotic Good person, they are doing something good because it is the right thing in that particular situation, regardless if it can be systematically applied. (So they may appear more arbitrary.) A very intelligent Chaotic can afterwards rationalize and understand why they felt the way they did and acted the way they did, but understanding why is less important than knowing that it is such.

Lawful, on the other hand, seeks to make their actions consistent with an external code - they may have self-applied this code, but they still view it as external. They will not act before having made their actions jive with said code, even if the rationalization is poor.

So basically, you view the Law-Chaos spectrum of 3E alignment as generally fitting into Freud's psychological structure.

The Chaotic aligned as personifications of the Id, acting according to gut instinct in whatever way is expected to maximize pleasure or minimize pain (at which point you apply the Good-Evil spectrum to determine how the character defined pleasure and pain).

The Lawful aligned, meanwhile, represent the Superego, the internalization of ideals, goals, and social mores. The specifics of the ideals, goals, and mores would also be defined by the character's location on the Good-Evil scale.

Which means Neutral would be Ego, striking a balance between Chaotic-Id and Lawful-Superego tendencies. In this case, the Neutral-aligned may be more calculating in their actions, since they need to determine whether instinct outweighs societal pressure or vice versa.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 12:22 PM
As a psychology minor, I'm ashamed I didn't think to put it that way, but yes.

Prime32
2009-08-21, 12:29 PM
Whereas I would say lawful = left-brain, chaotic = right-brain. Don't make that mistake (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllPsychologyIsFreudian). :smalltongue:

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 12:32 PM
Inappropriate link, I would argue; the conflict of social mores, even when internalized, with innate motive is still valued in psychology. Right-brain/left-brain on the other hand is also valid, but overused and simplified in pop psychology.

Civil War Man
2009-08-21, 12:40 PM
CN in particular would definitely search out the monster books (particularly Savage Species) and the alternate magic systems in order to make something weird and new; LN wouldn't necessarily care about balance, as long as it's legal, so for instance they'd probably shoot down a tenuously-justified infinite loop just as fast as they'd veto changing monk's BAB to full.

That's pretty much the way I interpreted it. Lawful as you defined is generally "Whatever gives the most plusses."

Lawful Good is "Whatever gives the group the most plusses." They will tend to grab the best buff spells when the are a caster. If they aren't playing a utility class (Fighter or Barbarian, for example), they will optimize normally to maximize the buffs that the others in the party will have.

Lawful Evil is "Whatever gives me more plusses than everyone else." Basically will try to break the system just shy of the point where they can be accused of cheating. Doesn't care about synergy with party members because their goal is to be able to fill all the roles better than the other players because not covering every role would allow another player to have the spotlight.

Lawful Neutral is "Whatever gives the most plusses that are allowed." As you said, they don't necessarily care about balance, but there are certain tricks that even a rules lawyer would consider off-limits even if technically allowed under RAW because it completely breaks the system. Even if the rules lawyer took advantage of things like Leadership recursion and infinite HP shambling mounds, they would be opposed to Pun-Puns because allowing Pun-Pun under RAW causes RAW to break down, since a Pun-Pun player can write new rules on the fly.

The Neoclassic
2009-08-21, 12:47 PM
I had completely missed this until warrl's post. What the hell, man?

Third'd. Way to bring in real world religion (or lack thereof) too. :smallannoyed:

Anyway, I think there's some interesting potential... but the roles are too narrow and, as someone else said, Neutral Evil would be Stupid Evil. Additionally, I'd argue Hobbes is more LN; Kant (don't get me started- he's just an example) would be a good LG model.

PairO'Dice Lost, you deserve one delicious chocolate cake for your system. Hilarious and excellent.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-21, 03:48 PM
That's pretty much the way I interpreted it. Lawful as you defined is generally "Whatever gives the most plusses."

Lawful Good is "Whatever gives the group the most plusses." They will tend to grab the best buff spells when the are a caster. If they aren't playing a utility class (Fighter or Barbarian, for example), they will optimize normally to maximize the buffs that the others in the party will have.

Lawful Evil is "Whatever gives me more plusses than everyone else." Basically will try to break the system just shy of the point where they can be accused of cheating. Doesn't care about synergy with party members because their goal is to be able to fill all the roles better than the other players because not covering every role would allow another player to have the spotlight.

Lawful Neutral is "Whatever gives the most plusses that are allowed." As you said, they don't necessarily care about balance, but there are certain tricks that even a rules lawyer would consider off-limits even if technically allowed under RAW because it completely breaks the system. Even if the rules lawyer took advantage of things like Leadership recursion and infinite HP shambling mounds, they would be opposed to Pun-Puns because allowing Pun-Pun under RAW causes RAW to break down, since a Pun-Pun player can write new rules on the fly.

Essentially. Likewise, the others in bullet points:

CG is "Explore the story and share the spotlight."
CE is "Kill the story, hog the spotlight."
CN is "Who cares about a spotlight? I'm making the story more interesting!"

NG is "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."
NE is "It's not whether you win or lose, as long as I win."
TN is "It's whether I play the game, I guess. What do I roll again?"


PairO'Dice Lost, you deserve one delicious chocolate cake for your system. Hilarious and excellent.

Thank you. I'll add it to my fridge. :smallbiggrin:

Hijax
2009-08-21, 04:02 PM
pair'o'dice, you win the internet. no, screw that, you win all internets in existence. no screw that, im going to a minor trip outside reality(the far realm, if you wish), to find something capable of describing your awesomeness. until i return, you can sig this.

imp_fireball
2009-08-22, 06:21 AM
What's your goal here? Examples of particular alignments are fine, but you've listed few and narrow ways to play.

Here's my alignment descriptions. They are extremely simple. Good v Evil is only about valuing life. Law v Chaos is only about whether you do the right thing when no one is watching.

Good: tries to avoid killing to achieve his goals. Values the lives of friends and strangers alike. Even values the lives of enemies (but not to a stupid extent).

Neutral: Values the live of friends, but only values the lives of strangers in the abstract, and thinks it's desirable for enemies to die.

Evil: just doesn't care how many have to die to achieve his goal. Still has friends, but even their lives are quite secondary to his own.

Lawful: does the right thing (by the values of the society he grew up in), even when no one is watching. Respects authority whenever doing so doesn't strongly conflict with his values.

Neutral: does the right thing when someone is watching. Respects authority only for its power to punish.

Chaotic: always has an excuse to do the wrong thing. Disrespects authority whenever doing so doesn't strongly conflict with his values.

That's it. Anything more complicated or strict is IMO just one way to play an alignment.

That limits playing too. Good people can be vengeful and unmerciful (at least according to a lot of players). Yet again, mine provides examples.

Really, it was an attempt to reword the alignment descriptions in RAW. Hence, title.



To be honest, I cannot think of one single character that I have ever played which fits into any of your nine alignments. :smallfrown: When something like that happens, I begin to seriously question just how accurate such a system is.

That's because these descriptions were meant to apply to real life rather than say, a D&D adventure. It's all a part of the question 'Could real life be put into D&D format?' that has pervaded many a forum for a while.

The alignments use extremities, but then again I did stress the word 'avatars' (at least I think I did), meaning that a character of the alignment can be extreme to that point. Determining alignment is a matter of determining which quality the character has the most of.

It wasn't meant to close doors to any less character bio creativity than has already been available.


This system also means that chaotic characters are more likely to be leaders than Lawful ones. Again, this goes contrary to the intent of the rules.

Then again, it's still realistic because ideologists that became leaders in real life were pretty much all chaotic. Lawfulness becoming rule only became fact when society took over (and prudes began referencing texts of written law that were originally only intended for convenience, etc., etc. :smallbiggrin:).

Nice_Hat
2009-08-22, 07:25 AM
In some other thread (and also on tvTropes) it was expressed that the idea of cosmic balance between good and evil is silly because good is always more desirable than evil by definition, so for a real rewording of alignment:

The first axis: order vs. freedom (law vs. chaos but chaos is often loaded with negative connotations)

Whether one believes in order, hierarchy, rules and tradition, or freedom, individuality, equality (in "lack of hierarchy") and diversity. Orderly people tend to support the law, their country and their leader even if they disagree with them. Chaotic people do what suits them but will not necessarily break the laws. They just dislike the idea that some are above others and allowed to tell others what to do.

The second axis: self-interest vs. community (selfishness vs. selflessness but similarly carrying excess burden)

This axis represents the idea of whom one's actions should primarily benefit. Self-interested people believe that people should primarily act in their own interest while community-focused people exist to serve others.


Selfless is the alignment most likely to cooperate with others but selfish people aren't averse to cooperating, they simply have different goals regarding it. Selfless people will cooperate simply for the sake of cooperation as they believe that the sum is more than its parts. Selfish people may cooperate, but they need to benefit from it. The difference between Law and Chaos demonstrates itself in group dynamics: Lawful people will prefer a clear chain of command and a leader who tells them what to do, while chaotic people prefer negotiation and consensus and may feel in no way obligated to act according to the decision, even if it's a mutual one, if they disagree with it.

Since neither self-interest nor community focus are morally superior, even absolutely selfish people may be very agreeable, as if they are intelligent they will be likely to follow the principles of enlightened self-interest. On the other hand, if they don't consider any benefit in treating others well, prepare for the most intelligent selfish people to be diabolic sociopaths.

Selfless people may be equally good or bad, as they can very well be mooks for the BBEG or a smaller version of such.



This avoids the inherent moral judgementalism in systems featuring good and evil and every alignment can be played both positively and negatively:

Lawful Selfless: The Paladin. One who serves to protect order and good and ready go sacrifice their convenience or even themselves for others.

Lawful Selfless: The Nazi. One who believes in their cause of bringing order and a strong leadership to the world and ready to die on the frontlines or turn off their morals to achieve it.

Lawful Selfish: The Merchant. One who will obey the laws and be fair and just while working to fulfill the needs of themselves and their family.

Lawful Selfish: The Greedy CEO. One who actively works inside the system applying every legal method to increase their power and wealth.

Chaotic Selfless: The Hippie. One who just wants to live in harmony with others and so that nobody is left behind or alone.

Chaotic Selfless: The Violent Anarchist. One who wants to bring down society for the sake of their ideology and will resort to suicide bombing to bring down law and order.

Chaotic Selfish: The Individualist. One who only wants the society to leave them alone, and they will leave the society alone. They believe in each man and woman for themselves and "you may do whatever you want as long as you don't harm the equal rights of others to do similarly"

Chaotic Selfish: The Crook. One who simply does what they feel like doing, and they feel like doing harm. They will hurt others for the kicks and feel no responsiblities towards anyone, but will be quick to demand things they feel entitled to.


Neutral is simply somewhere between the extremes and thus is not included in these descriptions.


On the large scale both order and freedom are needed, as are self-interest and selflessness. In fact, taken to the extremes each of these will turn towards evil or weak: a too selfless person (Selfless Stupid) will neglect individuals, reducing their ability to help others and Selfish Stupid is simply a jerk. Extreme lawful will easily become a fascist or an obstructive bureaucrat while Chaotic Stupid will result in either inability to accept even a temporary order in a life-threatening situation or a desire to bring down the structures that make lawful people feel comfortable and safe. Therefore balance is the only ultimately good option. Obviously, where the balance should lean towards and how much is debated.


Kudos to whomever brought the idea up in the first place.

imp_fireball
2009-08-22, 08:44 AM
Chaotic Neutral: Escapist. This guy is there to play a half-fiend three-tentacled wacky creature, insult the king to see what happens, and otherwise let off some steam from his daily life and/or be as unrealistic as possible.

Dude, that's so me.


Those were surprisingly hard to find...

And I thank you for it. The color pairing system probably works better than the alignment system ever could. The only issue I have with it crossing over into D&D adventures is alignment based spells and classes - particularly, the paladin obviously; although I have often tried to houserule the player defining their own code, determining alignment according to that and then determining their spells and abilities that way (which complicates things).

Could you PM me about any suggestions? You've changed my opinion, sir. :smallcool:


Completely agreed. I hope he was trying to say that a theist would attempt to impose the biases of his particular religion on the law and an atheist wouldn't be tempted to do so (as he wouldn't have a religious bias), but that's not what it ended up as.

Yah, pretty much what you hoped and what it didn't come out as.

pita
2009-08-22, 02:12 PM
And I thank you for it. The color pairing system probably works better than the alignment system ever could. The only issue I have with it crossing over into D&D adventures is alignment based spells and classes - particularly, the paladin obviously; although I have often tried to houserule the player defining their own code, determining alignment according to that and then determining their spells and abilities that way (which complicates things).

Could you PM me about any suggestions? You've changed my opinion, sir. :smallcool:

Actually, it's pretty simple.
First we determine that the Paladin class is only allowed one color, instead of one alignment. Lawful Good philosophy fits white the most, as well as the Paladin's abilities (punishing the evil, healing, protection are all in the white part of the color pie), so we'll take it as white. What are white's enemies in the color pie? Black and Red. So Paladins have Smite Black, Detect Black, Smite Red, and Detect Red. If you want to make it more extreme, you could say that the Paladin can only choose one color of those two, thus having Paladins of Order (enemies of Red) or Paladins of Community (Enemies of Black). Or just have all Paladins hate Black, and have a different, more order-aligned class hate red.
A lot of classes can have an alignment requirement in this, or have that one removed. Monks could be any color, but with a code of conduct, even though "Always Lawful" is generally white. You could have all wizards blue, as the wizard class is essentially power through knowledge.
It's really a matter of sitting down with all of the alignment things and working them out with colors, if you want it to work that way. I also like it because no one defines themselves as evil, except for the criminally stupid. But people wouldn't hesitate to align themselves with a color.