PDA

View Full Version : Alignment "Contradictions"



Zovc
2010-07-03, 03:56 AM
As a peface, I know a lot of people like to fling dung over this issue, but that's not what I want.

I remember someone claiming that one could describe a character as a paragon of both law and chaos without any serious contradictions, or something along the lines of that. This, of course, is problematic, since Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposites. Anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm having a conversation with a friend, and he said he'd like to see 'this'.

If you feel like you can provide something else relevant to this topic, feel free to do so.

Thanks in advance.

Raistlin1040
2010-07-03, 04:11 AM
If you were Neutral Good, theoretically you could be a Paragon of Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, but that's more because people misunderstand the Law/Chaos break. If a Chaotic Good character lives in a Lawful Good society, he's still probably a happy guy. He might wish there were less laws, but they're mostly there for the good of the people. If he lives in a Lawful Evil Society, he's going to hate it, and overthrow it if he can.

A Lawful Good Character? Still going to hate the Lawful Evil society. Still going to overthrow it if he can. LE and CE have such defined personalities. CE is a psychopath who kills anyone he sees. LE is a cunning killer who covers his tracks and follows a "profile" of who to kill. LN and CN are *designed* to be total opposites, even if they usually don't end up being played that way. But LG and CG? Usually working for the same goals, so the difference is a bit muddied. I'd see a Neutral Good character played with the "best" traits of Law and Chaos to be the best Good character possible, in terms of unbiased Goodness.

But a True Neutral Character who is a lot like a Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral one? Seems very unlikely. LN is order for the sake of order. CN is chaos for the sake of Chaos. Slipping down to LE and CE, they have different goals and desires, and can be radically different. So, no. I'd say impossible to be a purely Lawful and purely Chaotic character at the same time, unless you have two personalities. LG/CG though? It could be done.

Marriclay
2010-07-03, 04:15 AM
So, no. I'd say impossible to be a purely Lawful and purely Chaotic character at the same time, unless you have two personalities. LG/CG though? It could be done.

Impulsive side versus law abiding side? That could prove an interesting character

Anyways, I agree completely with Rastlin here. For the most part characters are dictated more by moral choice (Good vs. Evil) than Ethical ones (Lawful vs. Chaotic). You don't see many lawful good characters bent more towards law than good, just as you donn't see many chaotic evil characters who are little more than an excuse to derail and burn things

Raistlin1040
2010-07-03, 04:20 AM
You don't see many lawful good characters bent more towards law than good, just as you donn't see many chaotic evil characters who are little more than an excuse to derail and burn things
Well...you shouldn't, anyway. They do seem to crop up from time to time.

Marriclay
2010-07-03, 04:32 AM
Well...you shouldn't, anyway. They do seem to crop up from time to time.

very true, but they are more likely to come from the dedicated roleplayers who can actually do it well. Chaotic Evil character dedicated to the anarchy that is whatever god they follow? Check. Paladin focused on retribution with little room for mercy? More likely to fall than others, but still a check. For the most part though, those characters are 1 in 1000. all the other 999 are some strange (or sometimes bland) variation on what we unconsciously perceive as the dominant alignment traits. it's why you see so few characters that are LN or CN that are actually played dedicated to their ideal (rather than just being an excuse to have a stick up your butt or be insane)

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-03, 04:35 AM
Let me get this out of the way first: You being called upon to prove someone else's outrageous statement is... kinda weird. I mean, can you no longer reach the person who claimed this? O_o

The way I see it, a character being both pure lawful and pure chaotic can happen because of Law is a part of Chaos.

Another way to think of it is that, if Chaos is the trait of being able to do absolutely anything, then it includes being able to "do Law."

Example: An absolutely chaotic character has a whim - to be Lawful for the rest of his life. In this sense, you have a character acting completely lawful, but he does it in an absolutely chaotic framework.


At the same time, another paradox allows chaos to be contained in Law. What if there was a law that read, "Do what you want?" Then isn't being chaotic, which is basically synonymous with doing whatever you want, actually being lawful?

Example: A character who has sworn to do exactly what he wants all the time. In this, you have a character that is purely chaotic in a sense because of his absolute refusal to conform. At the same time, he is purely lawful because he is literally living his life according to an unbending code

Yora
2010-07-03, 04:38 AM
When a character has both lawful and chaotic tendencies, I make him neutral. Easy as that.

Math_Mage
2010-07-03, 04:48 AM
Example: A character who has sworn to do exactly what he wants all the time. In this, you have a character that is purely chaotic in a sense because of his absolute refusal to conform. At the same time, he is purely lawful because he is literally living his life according to an ethical code

I think the paradox may be only skin-deep. For one thing, how is 'doing exactly what you want to do' an ethical code? As stated, the character has simply decided to do whatever he wants, not that doing whatever he wants is the appropriate ethical decision. Then, too, the 'purely' Lawful/Chaotic aspects you cite are just that: aspects of their respective alignments. A character whose actions evince Lawful and Chaotic aspects is not necessarily a paradox.

Zovc
2010-07-03, 04:59 AM
Let me get this out of the way first: You being called upon to prove someone else's outrageous statement is... kinda weird. I mean, can you no longer reach the person who claimed this? O_o

Well, it was somewhere in a thread, not someone I 'make regular contact with'.

My friend isn't asking me to prove their statement, I'm just hoping to provide it to him. He likes debating things because he's a Philosophy major. :P

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-03, 05:14 AM
I think the paradox may be only skin-deep. For one thing, how is 'doing exactly what you want to do' an ethical code? As stated, the character has simply decided to do whatever he wants, not that doing whatever he wants is the appropriate ethical decision. Then, too, the 'purely' Lawful/Chaotic aspects you cite are just that: aspects of their respective alignments. A character whose actions evince Lawful and Chaotic aspects is not necessarily a paradox.

I edited out the word "ethical" because I figured it was more a part of the good-evil axis than lawful-chaotic. The important part is whether or not the character is following a "code," an external thing that would force him to decide in a way that may not be what he really wants.

Let me try to explain my reasoning this way:

A. You are faced with a choice of doing X or doing Y. By definition, Chaotic means there's a chance you would do X and a chance you would do Y.

Lawful, on the other hand, means there is no probability and you will always do X or always do Y, depending on the particular law or code you followed.

B. The choice you're faced with making is either to act purely Lawful (X) or to act purely Chaotic (Y)

C. You can be purely Lawful by making choice X in a Lawful manner, where no matter what, you would not have made choice Y.

You can be purely Chaotic by making choice Y with the chance that you could, instead, have made choice X.

D. However, you can be purely Lawful AND purely Chaotic by making choice X although you could, instead, have made choice Y.

The same happens if you make choice Y by the fact that you would always have made choice Y.

edit: I guess I could put it in another way. "Deciding" or "Committing" to do something is a Lawful action, since you're arbitrarily restricting yourself from other possibilities. Thus, if you "Decide" to "be Chaotic," you're acting Chaotic, but within a paradoxically Lawful framework.

Marriclay
2010-07-03, 05:29 AM
I edited out the word "ethical" because I figured it was more a part of the good-evil axis than lawful-chaotic. The important part is whether or not the character is following a "code," an external thing that would force him to decide in a way that may not be what he really wants.

Let me try to explain my reasoning this way:

A. You are faced with a choice of doing X or doing Y. By definition, Chaotic means there's a chance you would do X and a chance you would do Y.

Lawful, on the other hand, means there is no probability and you will always do X or always do Y, depending on the particular law or code you followed.

B. The choice you're faced with making is either to act purely Lawful (X) or to act purely Chaotic (Y)

C. You can be purely Lawful by making choice X in a Lawful manner, where no matter what, you would not have made choice Y.

You can be purely Chaotic by making choice Y with the chance that you could, instead, have made choice X.

D. However, you can be purely Lawful AND purely Chaotic by making choice X although you could, instead, have made choice Y.

The same happens if you make choice Y by the fact that you would always have made choice Y.

You're logic has a single hole in it though. You say that making choice X when you could have made choice Y is both Lawful and Chaotic. While this is not contradictory to the previous statement, you have to consider intentions. They are what make the day. killing a man can be construed in an insane amount of ways, all based on your intentions and thoughts. There are many occasions where people have described a single action from all nine alignment viewpoints. I'm too tired to make one, but suffice it to say, this causes a lot of problems

this could mean that X is Y, dependent on the person performing the action. or that both Y and X are Y. or that both X and Y are A (Good). or Maybe they're B (Evil). Or maybe they're AY. or BX. or maybe they're something else entirely, or all of them. killing a man is normally considered an evil act, but acting as an appointed executioner is a lawful, if distasteful, one. chaotic might have been impulse. stopping him from harming others is good.

In the end, it's the character intention that holds true, not some silly mathematical formula attempting to break fluff the same way we've broken everything else in this game. Yes, a chaotic action can be a lawful action, but it can also be said that every square is a rectangle without every rectangle being a square. it's a logic hole, that, while no less true for being such, is sadly irrelevant

Disclaimer: I apologize if a bit of that is incoherent or otherwise doesn't make sense. inform me and I shall do my best to correct it, though it may take a few tries, as a tired mind is a confused mind. Accursed insomnia.

Zombimode
2010-07-03, 05:37 AM
Could someone explain the meaning of "ethical" to me?
Because the terms "Ethics" and "ethical" how they are used in philosophy contradict with the way you guys use them here.
To explain: ethics is the sience of moral; in other words, ethics = moral philosophy.

In this usage statements can be ethical, or theories can have ethical aspects, but actions can not. Actions may have a moral quality but "ethical" is not a property that actions could have.

But maybe there is a colloquial meaning that differs from that?

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-03, 05:42 AM
You're logic has a single hole in it though. You say that making choice X when you could have made choice Y is both Lawful and Chaotic. While this is not contradictory to the previous statement, you have to consider intentions. They are what make the day. killing a man can be construed in an insane amount of ways, all based on your intentions and thoughts. There are many occasions where people have described a single action from all nine alignment viewpoints. I'm too tired to make one, but suffice it to say, this causes a lot of problems

this could mean that X is Y, dependent on the person performing the action. or that both Y and X are Y. or that both X and Y are A (Good). or Maybe they're B (Evil). Or maybe they're AY. or BX. or maybe they're something else entirely, or all of them. killing a man is normally considered an evil act, but acting as an appointed executioner is a lawful, if distasteful, one. chaotic might have been impulse. stopping him from harming others is good.

In the end, it's the character intention that holds true, not some silly mathematical formula attempting to break fluff the same way we've broken everything else in this game. Yes, a chaotic action can be a lawful action, but it can also be said that every square is a rectangle without every rectangle being a square. it's a logic hole, that, while no less true for being such, is sadly irrelevant

Disclaimer: I apologize if a bit of that is incoherent or otherwise doesn't make sense. inform me and I shall do my best to correct it, though it may take a few tries, as a tired mind is a confused mind. Accursed insomnia.

Here's the problem with me trying to explain someone else's claim. :smallannoyed: I'm explaining a way in which he would be correct even though there exist other ways in which he's wrong.

This "silly mathematical formula" is only one way to approach the problem, but you have to realize that your "intentions are the only thing that matters" is only another way, out of many, to approach the problem as well.

In DnD, I've found that different people have different views of what alignments mean, from "intentions matter," to "actions matter," to even "race matters." It's usually the DM's job to determine and establish which actually matters in a particular campaign.

Zombimode
2010-07-03, 06:05 AM
I try to come to an understanding how the terms "chaotic" and "lawfull" are used in the aligment context.
Your statement contain a bit of a definition so I hope you dont mind that I focus only on this part.
Concerning the definition, I have some questions.



A. You are faced with a choice of doing X or doing Y. By definition, Chaotic means there's a chance you would do X and a chance you would do Y.

You say chaotic means: "there's a chance" whether to choose option X or Y.

No the question arises: what do you mean by "there's a chance"? Is this chance from a worldly perspektive (a spectators perspektive) or from a godly?

a) From a worldly perspektive it would probaly mean something like: his past actions are not coherent enough for me to predict his choice now.

b) From a godly perspektive it would mean, that somewhere in his choicemaking process there is a truly random element.

If you mean a) then chaotic becomes relative (based on the available information and knowledge of the spectators). Since the D&D aligment system requires its categories to be constant and not relative, this could not be.

But if you mean b) then the question arises, why this specific (chaotic) individual has this random element in his choicemaking process while others (the lawfull) of the same species have not.

But maybe I have misunderstood your usage of "there is a chance". If yes, could you explain, what you wanted to say with it?

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-03, 06:25 AM
I try to come to an understanding how the terms "chaotic" and "lawfull" are used in the aligment context.
Your statement contain a bit of a definition so I hope you dont mind that I focus only on this part.
Concerning the definition, I have some questions.



You say chaotic means: "there's a chance" whether to choose option X or Y.

No the question arises: what do you mean by "there's a chance"? Is this chance from a worldly perspektive (a spectators perspektive) or from a godly?

a) From a worldly perspektive it would probaly mean something like: his past actions are not coherent enough for me to predict his choice now.

b) From a godly perspektive it would mean, that somewhere in his choicemaking process there is a truly random element.

If you mean a) then chaotic becomes relative (based on the available information and knowledge of the spectators). Since the D&D aligment system requires its categories to be constant and not relative, this could not be.

But if you mean b) then the question arises, why this specific (chaotic) individual has this random element in his choicemaking process while others (the lawfull) of the same species have not.

But maybe I have misunderstood your usage of "there is a chance". If yes, could you explain, what you wanted to say with it?

By your definition, I mean the "godly perspective."

I don't understand how your question impacts the Zovc's question or my answer to it.

But to answer it... why would a specific individual have a random element in his choicemaking process? Possibly because he's a Demon... or because he's not a Modron. Or possibly because the player behind the character decided to roll a die or flip a coin every time the character had to make a decision.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-03, 06:35 AM
"just wing it" is sort of the attitude that comes with Chaos... but a chaotic guy wouldn't do anything stupid out of randomness unless he was stupid.

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-03, 06:41 AM
"just wing it" is sort of the attitude that comes with Chaos... but a chaotic guy wouldn't do anything stupid out of randomness unless he was stupid.

Or completely, irredeemably insane. With a low Wisdom.

Grumman
2010-07-03, 06:49 AM
"just wing it" is sort of the attitude that comes with Chaos...
Agreed. A chaotic character goes with what seems like the best option at the time, rather than specifically trying to be consistent. This still won't be random, unless the character is incapable of such a judgement.

Mr. Anon Omys
2010-07-03, 07:13 AM
Even good and evil can be combined in the same person. What about someone who saves puppies, asks first and shoots second, and never commits a truly evil act in his life, but spends his time setting up situations in which others have to act evil, sacrificing their morals to accomplish some goal. The character never does evil, but he advises others to commit evil and then makes sure that they carry through. His actions are mostly good, but his intent is truly evil. Is this character good or evil? Or both?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-03, 07:30 AM
Even good and evil can be combined in the same person. What about someone who saves puppies, asks first and shoots second, and never commits a truly evil act in his life, but spends his time setting up situations in which others have to act evil, sacrificing their morals to accomplish some goal. The character never does evil, but he advises others to commit evil and then makes sure that they carry through. His actions are mostly good, but his intent is truly evil. Is this character good or evil? Or both?

Evil. Very likely lawful too, as he has a very fixed method of keeping a mask and making sure everyone else is indirectly miserable.

nedz
2010-07-03, 08:09 AM
I think that you may be looking at this the wrong way around.

I think that I recall the thead to which you are referring.

In it the OP said, This is what my character is like, What alignment is he ?

Several of us came up with reasoned arguements as to why they might be LG, NG, CG, LN, NN or CN; but :-
The characterisation wasn't a simplistic idea whereas the alignment system is.
We never claimed thet the character was, or could be, a paragon of any alignment.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 08:12 AM
Even good and evil can be combined in the same person. What about someone who saves puppies, asks first and shoots second, and never commits a truly evil act in his life, but spends his time setting up situations in which others have to act evil, sacrificing their morals to accomplish some goal. The character never does evil, but he advises others to commit evil and then makes sure that they carry through. His actions are mostly good, but his intent is truly evil. Is this character good or evil? Or both?

"Good acts" done for selfish reasons are Neutral in BoED.

Tempting others to do evil is an evil act in BoVD. So- even if you never "do evil" with your own hands, encouraging others to do evil is enough.

That said, not everybody uses these two sources. Still, I figure that tempting others should always count.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-03, 08:16 AM
You don't see many lawful good characters bent more towards law than good, just as you donn't see many chaotic evil characters who are little more than an excuse to derail and burn things

My friend had a knack for playing paladins that saw law as more important that good... Got away with some nasty stuff. Dx

But then again, he was playing it more like a crusader, which makes sense for a paladin.

Edit: I hate people who argue about alignments. The alignment lined are quite blurred and aren't as black and white as most people think. A lawful good character won't always go out of his way to go smiting goblins just because they're evil. Think of people in real life; Sure there are extremists, but most people are just normal, even if they are good, or evil, it's more of how you conduct yourself personally, and I hate people that say "OH your lawful neutral, you should have OCD and murder people who break the law and never ever have a sense of humor. You should have an alignment change!11!" (sorry, I play with someone like that and it really pisses me off ^.^;;)

Friend Computer
2010-07-03, 08:22 AM
This idea that 'chaotic' means 'random' is... wrong.
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.

If posed with a hard situation, the chaotic character will not necessarily 'wing it' but will not hold tradition in any high regard and will not do what they are told because they are told to by an authority figure. They will make their decision based on what feels right to them. They may ask for outside help in making the decision, or they may reject all outside input as an unwanted intrusion.

The lawful character, however, will make their decision based on what they've been told to do by those authorities they consider legitimate, based on tradition, and based on a more or less concrete personal code.

It isn't really about structure vs randomness.

Also:

CE is a psychopath who kills anyone he sees. LE is a cunning killer who covers his tracks and follows a "profile" of who to kill.
Is completely, totally, and unconditionally wrong. CE is certainly evil, but this does not imply that they are some kind of idiot that randomly kills. yes, they do very bad stuff for the lulz, but they also have int/wis scores like any other creature of their race, and would only take advantage of a situation to engage in their evil whim if they think they can get away with it. In a city ruled by a powerful order of paladins, there might be many CE people who are not found guilty of any crime, simply because they are not idiots, and keep any evil they commit to the shadows, where no one notices, or simply be too scared by the paladin pressence that they never get around to acting on their evil whims.

Also of note is that evil is not merely killing. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. The landlord who, being the only one with money within weeks worth of travel, forces the children of his peasants into slavery to pay the debts of their parents, and then being the only supplier of most goods, demanding greater prices for his goods, keeping the peasants held tightly in his financial grip, treating them as he wishes... That is a perfectly valid evil as well, and most certainly of the lawful kind.

The descriptions of good and evil, of law and chaos given in the books and SRD show us many facets of these alignments. It is utterly stupid to flanderize them into one interpretation of one facet, and then set that up as a straw man. As it is there is lots of room for differing interpretations when you aren't dealing with flanderised, exagerated CN flip-a-coin-to-jump-off-the-bridge, CE psychopathy, and LG lawful-stupid, so there is no need to bring them into it.

Ever.

Mastikator
2010-07-03, 08:26 AM
The core of the problem I see is that alignment multiple things that don't necessarily relate. Alignment describes your personality, but also your "side", it also describes your principles AND your actions to boot. Someone can be impulsive, but principally value rules and order, someone can be selfless but still kill without remorse. This makes it very hard to pin down an alignment since it can go either way depending on what facts you prioritize (and you have to decide what facts are more important arbitrary since it's not described by RAW or even RAI AFAIK).

Because of this fact, the 4e alignment system is superior. It describes only one of the things above, specifically which side you're on.

Personally, I am in favor of simply removing the entire system. Use adjectives to describe the personality, and flesh out the specific, exact goals the character has. Do this instead of being distracted by which alignment it has. Yes, I said it, and I stand by it, alignments distract you from roleplaying.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 08:33 AM
Often, it doesn't do that. CE deities like Grummsh fought alongside Evil , Unaligned, Good, and LG deities in the Dawn War against the primordials, who were a mix of Unaligned, Evil, and CE.

4E alignment doesn't really decribe whose side you are on that well.


Also of note is that evil is not merely killing. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. The landlord who, being the only one with money within weeks worth of travel, forces the children of his peasants into slavery to pay the debts of their parents, and then being the only supplier of most goods, demanding greater prices for his goods, keeping the peasants held tightly in his financial grip, treating them as he wishes... That is a perfectly valid evil as well, and most certainly of the lawful kind.

Agreed- and it doesn't have to be as severe as slavery. A tavern brawler who beats anyone tough-looking, and mocks anyone weak-looking, who comes into "his" bar because he wants to keep his position as Scariest Guy Around (but doesn't actively try to kill anyone) is still "hurting and oppressing others" and may qualify as evil-aligned.

NecroRebel
2010-07-03, 08:34 AM
This question, as I've always understood it, arises due to how Law and Chaos are defined in-game. The definitions for both are very clear (though very much unsatisfactory, in part due to this paradox arising), and are as follows.

From the srd:
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.

A character who always tells the truth and keeps their word because their conscience tells them to and they like doing what their conscience tells them to, likes new ideas over tradition yet still respects what has come before, judges people who fall short of their duties, and resents being ordered around but respects authority enough to at least listen to their requests fits both the definition for a lawful character and a chaotic character. So, are they Lawful, or Chaotic? It could be either, it could be neither, or it could be both.

To the OP: If your friend is a philosophy major and beyond his second year of higher education, he's probably very familiar with the concept that how we define terms can completely shape our arguments, even to violations of common sense. This contradiction arises, for the most part, solely because the way alignments are defined are not clearusable. People constantly want to add things to the definitions of alignments just to make them somewhat workable; even the generally-accepted idea that "'just wing it' is the attitude of Chaotics" is not, strictly speaking, part of the definition.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 08:37 AM
I'd go with Neutral for characters who exhibit a mix of common Chaotic and Lawful traits.

NecroRebel
2010-07-03, 08:39 AM
I'd go with Neutral for characters who exhibit a mix of common Chaotic and Lawful traits.

As would I, but that doesn't change the fact that they have every Chaotic trait and are thus arguably Chaotic and every Lawful trait and are thus arguably Lawful :smallamused::smallsigh:

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 08:46 AM
Main difference is (unlike Good/Evil) there isn't much in the way of precedent for resolving it one way or another.


On the Good/Evil axis, a character with some Evil traits and some Good, is more likely to be Evil than Good, if those evil traits are severe enough. If you torture people regularly, you're Evil, even if you're also charitable and kind to those in need, going by Champions of Ruin.

However there isn't an "If you follow orders you think suck, you're Lawful, even if you do Chaotic things" text anywhere.

There's an essay:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends

which discusses this sort of thing- pointing out that DMs have to setting some things if they're using Alignment, since the game always leaves it a little vague.

And that Lawful and Chaotic are so undefined as to be useless.

742
2010-07-03, 08:59 AM
i go out of my way to oppose any authority or rule that noone can explain to me and make me want to obey without resorting to the use of a stick* on principle, even if im tired or its really boring or really really inconvenient.

but i do it because i believe that useless rules devalue all other rules and the very concept of respect, and that firm rules are a good safety net for a society to fall back on when everything else fails and a tangled net isnt much good to anybody. if i know and understand them rather than just obeying blindly because someone will hit me with a stick if i dont i can apply them better with more degrees of nuance in any situation where they might possibly be relevant even if i hadnt thought to ask what the rule was or the rule-makers hadnt thought of it, like going slower than the speed limit with an icy road and low visibility or protecting movies under free speech laws that were made hundreds of years ago.

*dont do that. it never ends well.

JKTrickster
2010-07-03, 09:08 AM
I think a major part of this discussion hasn't been said yet: Neutral.

In a very large part, Neutral is actually a little confusing. What does it mean to "exhibit both lawful and chaotic tendencies"? Isn't that necessarily chaotic?

I think the vagueness in the Neutral alignment really muddle this topic. The deal is, trying to define TN could be seen as: with no regard to either side, with tendencies to do both side, or even just being selfish (TN).

If Neutrality was better explained (and thus the "middle of the spectrum" was better explained) I think it would help clear out a lot of the paradoxes.


Just my two coppers, argue if you want.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 09:27 AM
If you go by FC2, Lawful acts can "taint" Chaotic souls in the same way as Evil acts can "taint" basically Good souls, and may need to be atoned for.

It suggests that devils tempt CE folk into committing Lawful acts (called Obesiant acts) so that once they're done enough, devilds get their souls when they die.

However, this is a very short sidebar- and might not apply in standard games.

nefele
2010-07-03, 09:28 AM
I remember someone claiming that one could describe a character as a paragon of both law and chaos without any serious contradictions
Oliver Cromwell?

Captain Six
2010-07-03, 11:06 AM
If you go by FC2, Lawful acts can "taint" Chaotic souls in the same way as Evil acts can "taint" basically Good souls, and may need to be atoned for.

It suggests that devils tempt CE folk into committing Lawful acts (called Obesiant acts) so that once they're done enough, devilds get their souls when they die.

However, this is a very short sidebar- and might not apply in standard games.

If you go with the idea that all alignments are equal and opposite, any actions of an opposing alignment taints its inverse. It can make for interesting gameplay, I've had a neutral evil warlock struggling to stave off her naturally good tendencies in order to maintain her powers that she will lose if she slips into neutral. For those who take pride in their evil, falling toward good can be just as easy as a paladin falling toward evil.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 11:49 AM
Currently, there isn't anything to support this though- only Evil and Lawful acts have gotten these rules.

If rules for Chaotic or Good acts mirroring those had been published- you'd end up with:

"I have a Corruption rating of 9, and a Consecration rating of 9. The rules say I automatically go to both the Lower and Upper planes. What happens?"

"Taking pride in their evil" is a rarity (In Champions of Ruin, it says its rare for Evil characters to admit to being evil, and most consider themselves, if not good, at least not evil.)

And the rules tend to bias the system along the Good/Evil axis. None of the Vile prestige classes in BoVD get penalized for committing Good acts, but all the Exalted PRCs in BoED lose their powers for committing Evil acts.

I think that works- evil characters get it easier than good ones- and that's the way it should be. The rules do not have to be symmetrical.

Math_Mage
2010-07-03, 11:58 AM
Could someone explain the meaning of "ethical" to me?

D&D uses "ethicality" for the Law-Chaos axis, to contrast with "morality" for the Good-Evil axis. No, it doesn't make sense.



Let me try to explain my reasoning this way:

A. You are faced with a choice of doing X or doing Y. By definition, Chaotic means there's a chance you would do X and a chance you would do Y.

Lawful, on the other hand, means there is no probability and you will always do X or always do Y, depending on the particular law or code you followed.

The error in reasoning is equating chaos to chance.

Chaos applies situational ethics: the better choice is determined by the circumstances. Law applies a code: the better choice is determined by the far-reaching principle.


I think a major part of this discussion hasn't been said yet: Neutral.

In a very large part, Neutral is actually a little confusing. What does it mean to "exhibit both lawful and chaotic tendencies"? Isn't that necessarily chaotic?

No, not any more than 'exhibiting both good and evil tendencies' would be necessarily evil. For example, someone who obeys the law because he respects the need for an ordered society, but gripes about how old-fashioned it is and how it needs to change with the times, would be Neutral: exhibiting both Lawful and Chaotic tendencies.

Zovc
2010-07-03, 12:32 PM
I would just like to point out that, a character who fully represents both law and chaos simply cannot be neutral according to the mechanics of the game. If I fully represent Chaos, Protection from Chaos should hose me. If I fully represent Law, Protection from Law should hose me. The fact that there are mechanical implications for being Lawful and/or Chaotic (and that there are no mechanical implications to being Neutral) means that you have to be of both alignments if you represent both alignments.

This is why I'm not concerned with a character who is 'kinda Lawful and kinda Chaotic', but one who 'is a paragon of both Law and Chaos'.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-03, 01:24 PM
And the rules tend to bias the system along the Good/Evil axis. None of the Vile prestige classes in BoVD get penalized for committing Good acts, but all the Exalted PRCs in BoED lose their powers for committing Evil acts.

I think that works- evil characters get it easier than good ones- and that's the way it should be. The rules do not have to be symmetrical.

To further that, a character who can never commit a good act and has to be evil all day. Probably won't live very long.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 01:37 PM
Well- they could commit only Neutral acts and Evil ones- carefully committing Neutral acts (but never Good ones) in public, and Evil acts in private.

Such evil characters who are actually forbidden to commit Good acts, or they lose their powers, are extremely rare. The Paladin of Slaughter and Paladin of Tyranny, in the SRD (copied from Unearthed Arcana) are about the only ones I can think of offhand.

lsfreak
2010-07-03, 03:45 PM
Well- they could commit only Neutral acts and Evil ones- carefully committing Neutral acts (but never Good ones) in public, and Evil acts in private.

Such evil characters who are actually forbidden to commit Good acts, or they lose their powers, are extremely rare. The Paladin of Slaughter and Paladin of Tyranny, in the SRD (copied from Unearthed Arcana) are about the only ones I can think of offhand.

It kind of depends on what, exactly, is a good act and what is neutral. Selfishness is inherently neutral. Is acting 'good' to a select few people - devoted followers, close family, one's clan - still a good act, or a neutral act? I view it as neutral, myself, at least until you get to the point of willingly suffering (whether physically, financially, or anything else) for those others, and even then it can be iffy, depending on the person.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 03:52 PM
I view it as neutral, myself, at least until you get to the point of willingly suffering (whether physically, financially, or anything else) for those others, and even then it can be iffy, depending on the person.

This is pretty much the approach BoED takes- helping others isn't enough- you need to sacrifice, in at least some way, for others.

I've seen claims that whenever you take a risk on somebody's behalf- even if the risk is only "waiting until you are certain a person is going to attack you before hitting first" it counts as a Good act- because you are jeopardizing yourself, even if you haven't actually sacrificed anything.

Specifically:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0729.html

The argument was that attacking Roy was a Neutral act, and waiting till Roy's "ominous words" actually became actual threats, would have been a Good act:


Staying your hand when doing so might cost you your life might seem passive rather than active, but it is just as much of a sacrifice as wading into deadly combat for someone you don't know.


I think this is taking "Good act" too far though. If a person who might be a mugger comes up to you, says something ominous, but you choose to not attack until they actually reach for their weapon- that choice to wait till you're sure isn't a Good act- its avoiding the risk of committing an Evil act.

Jorda75
2010-07-03, 04:16 PM
As a peface, I know a lot of people like to fling dung over this issue, but that's not what I want.

I remember someone claiming that one could describe a character as a paragon of both law and chaos without any serious contradictions, or something along the lines of that. This, of course, is problematic, since Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposites. Anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about?

Thanks in advance.

While I feel you can represent both law and chaos or a balance between the two I don't think, by definition, you can be a paragon of both.

"A model of excellence or perfection of a kind; a peerless example: a paragon of virtue." Dictionary.com

Being a perfect example of Law or Chaos would automatically disqualify anyone who was lenient towards the other as not being a paragon. Law and Chaos as defined by the D&D cosmology are on the same axis but at opposing ends meaning there must be a middle ground, but you cannot champion both at the same time.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 04:30 PM
There is an outsider in MMIV that gets both Dictum and Word of Chaos as spell-like abilities, as well as a sword that is both Anarchic and Axiomatic.

It also gets Blasphemy and Holy Word, and its sword is Holy and Unholy.

It is Always Neutral, and is called the Concordant Killer.

So, you can have mighty Chaotic and Lawful powers- and end up Neutral.

Kilremgor
2010-07-03, 04:56 PM
Another point to consider in Law-vs-Chaos: like Evil/Good axis, it is possible to have opposite alignment of goals and means to accomplish them.

Like, upholding the strictly-defined far-reaching principle (Lawful goal) by performing actions that disregard different principles and are situational (Chaotic). For example, an assassin who never betrays his employer (both keeping his identity secret and committed to assigned job) under any circumstance (even if not betraying means personal loss or death), but will use all the underhanded/unfair tactics to get the job done (lying, hiding, disguises, etc.) and enjoys leaving as much as possible chaos (breaking all the laws, humiliating city guard, and liking to feel himself above the law). It's quite widespread character type in fantasy - but its position on Lawful-Chaotic axis isn't that obvious.

If he was 'just' Neutral, by the book, he would've been somewhat different: not taking neither Law nor Chaos to their extremes. Thus, he could crack under torture to save his life and break the given word (or turn on his employer for personal gain), and would avoid the excess chaos and crimes - just getting the job done.

But still 'Neutral' of all three choices fits better than just 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic'.

So Neutral can mean 'absence of both Chaos and Law extremes' and 'equal presence of Chaos and Law extremes'.

So perhaps Law and Chaos aren't really that opposite, as they don't appear to readily cancel each other; maybe they are better defined as two parallel axis and one can score points on both, without one 'tainting' or 'canceling' the other. That, however, warrants an unnecessary gameplay change as no spells, requirements and abilities are defined with that approach in mind, and a lot of conversion should be done so that can work.

Marriclay
2010-07-03, 04:57 PM
There is an outsider in MMIV that gets both Dictum and Word of Chaos as spell-like abilities, as well as a sword that is both Anarchic and Axiomatic.

It also gets Blasphemy and Holy Word, and its sword is Holy and Unholy.

It is Always Neutral, and is called the Concordant Killer.

So, you can have mighty Chaotic and Lawful powers- and end up Neutral.

well, it makes sense. how else are you going to justify all those opposed powers?

Friend Computer
2010-07-03, 07:09 PM
Another point to consider in Law-vs-Chaos: like Evil/Good axis, it is possible to have opposite alignment of goals and means to accomplish them.

Like, upholding the strictly-defined far-reaching principle (Lawful goal) by performing actions that disregard different principles and are situational (Chaotic). For example, an assassin who never betrays his employer (both keeping his identity secret and committed to assigned job) under any circumstance (even if not betraying means personal loss or death), but will use all the underhanded/unfair tactics to get the job done (lying, hiding, disguises, etc.) and enjoys leaving as much as possible chaos (breaking all the laws, humiliating city guard, and liking to feel himself above the law). It's quite widespread character type in fantasy - but its position on Lawful-Chaotic axis isn't that obvious.

If he was 'just' Neutral, by the book, he would've been somewhat different: not taking neither Law nor Chaos to their extremes. Thus, he could crack under torture to save his life and break the given word (or turn on his employer for personal gain), and would avoid the excess chaos and crimes - just getting the job done.

But still 'Neutral' of all three choices fits better than just 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic'.

So Neutral can mean 'absence of both Chaos and Law extremes' and 'equal presence of Chaos and Law extremes'.

So perhaps Law and Chaos aren't really that opposite, as they don't appear to readily cancel each other; maybe they are better defined as two parallel axis and one can score points on both, without one 'tainting' or 'canceling' the other. That, however, warrants an unnecessary gameplay change as no spells, requirements and abilities are defined with that approach in mind, and a lot of conversion should be done so that can work.

I'm inclined to rule out Lawful as a possibility in this scenario. My reasoning for this is that the lawful traits you have presented are of a personal nature: The assassin is loyal to their employer alone, protects them alone, but will use whatever underhanded tricks in every other case and to protect them.

Contrast for the moment this situation: A group that commits clearly archetypal evil acts with clearly archetypal evil goals exists. The leader of this group loves his people and would do anything for them: He would babysit their children if he had to, he would personally hold off an army to let them escape, he would turn himself in to the good authorities to throw off the investigation so that the conspiracy may continue. Regardless of the classically 'good' deeds committed by this person, they still only do this for a small group of people, and they do it based on personal ties and organisational (possibly racial) ties. They do not do these things out of a conviction that it is the right thing to do. And at the end of the day, they are still working to spread evil. Such a character would undoubtedly be evil.

Above it was said that to make the alignment system work we have to work outside RAW/RAI to determine which aspects of the alignments are 'worth' more. We don't have that, but what we can do is judge which aspects fit more or less with a given character, how present they are in that character.

Now, there will be contradictory tendencies in characters all alignments, that's just dialectics, there is no escaping that. And that is good, it gives drama, it gives us factions, it gives us the inevitability of something turning into its opposite.

Zovc
2010-07-03, 08:09 PM
But still 'Neutral' of all three choices fits better than just 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic'.

So Neutral can mean 'absence of both Chaos and Law extremes' and 'equal presence of Chaos and Law extremes'.

So perhaps Law and Chaos aren't really that opposite, as they don't appear to readily cancel each other; maybe they are better defined as two parallel axis and one can score points on both, without one 'tainting' or 'canceling' the other. That, however, warrants an unnecessary gameplay change as no spells, requirements and abilities are defined with that approach in mind, and a lot of conversion should be done so that can work.

How is it that Detect Chaos (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectChaos.htm) recognizes that someone is Chaotic? Whatever it is that makes Detect Chaos realize a subject is Chaotic shouldn't be drowned out by a character also doing a lot of stuff that makes them Lawful.

It'll be easier to demonstrate with Good/Evil, so I'll do so.

I'm a person who likes to burn down orphanages, okay? That's pretty evil. But in addition to burning orphanages compulsively, I do everything that a good character does (with the exception of burning orphanages, of course). Am I no longer evil, just because I do a lot of good stuff between burning orphanages? Does Detect Evil not work on me, because I'm neutral?

hamishspence
2010-07-04, 05:52 AM
If you go by Champions of Ruin a character can behave in a "good" fashion most of the time, and an evil fashion only a small amount of the time (but regularly- and very evil) and be evil aligned- evil acts tend to outweigh good ones.

It's easier to be evil than Good. From the site I linked to earlier:


It really takes a lot less harm to be Evil than it takes aid to be Good. If you fix twenty people's roofs, you're Jimmy the Helpful Thatcher. But if you eat your neighbor's daughter, you're Jimmy the Cannibal – and no additional carpentry assistance will change that.

olentu
2010-07-04, 06:19 AM
If you go by Champions of Ruin a character can behave in a "good" fashion most of the time, and an evil fashion only a small amount of the time (but regularly- and very evil) and be evil aligned- evil acts tend to outweigh good ones.

It's easier to be evil than Good. From the site I linked to earlier:

That is a rather terrible example since for the most part eating someone to death is much more harm then fixing 20 roofs would be aid.

Unless of course the roofs were built out the pieces of your soul and they fight off the quite common alien attacks routinely saving millions of lives or something of the sort.

2xMachina
2010-07-04, 06:29 AM
Try this.

I believe in freedom for everyone. But that also means freedom to follow rules strictly. And choosing to follow rules, while believing in total freedom for everyone, is it Lawful or Chaotic?

Acanous
2010-07-04, 06:40 AM
I play a Paladin that puts more value on Law than Good.
I've got it on his sheet, his mission statement is "Duty before Honor, Honor before Glory".
Playing him like that is actually pretty cool, and leads to some awesome roleplay.

Like... He once turned down the chance to go meet with his God because someone he was responsable for was trapped in another plane.
or when he cut up the bodies of some orcs found in a laboratory with golem parts fused to them, so he could take them back to the General he works for.
(Evidence. People wouldn't believe that kind of threat could exist without it)

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 06:49 AM
Try this.

I believe in freedom for everyone. But that also means freedom to follow rules strictly. And choosing to follow rules, while believing in total freedom for everyone, is it Lawful or Chaotic?

I'd say it wouldn't be lawful, as lawful empathizes with the concept that everyone must participate in a well oiled machine. Giving the option of not doing that while still living in the same society would very likely irk an orderly person. Call it neutral or chaotic.

Amiel
2010-07-04, 06:58 AM
I feel the easiest, and simplest, way to personify this is to introduce and include alignment tendencies.

That is, tendencies that are inherent in more or less degree within the individual, yet do not overshadow the "dominant" alignment. As an example, you could be lawful evil (neutral).

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 07:16 AM
I don't see how that adds to the alignment system, as that's already implied in it.

Amiel
2010-07-04, 07:31 AM
D&D follows an absolute objective alignment system; shades of grey morality is not and 'cannot' be expressed by it, at least not inherently. Tendencies are not implied by the system (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment).

Yora
2010-07-04, 07:52 AM
Of course you can make the 3x3 alignment system into a 7x7 alignment system, but what to you gain by that? How is it more usefull to know if a character is CN or CNE, oe CEN?
With the standard 3x3 alignments, you simply have a LE character whose lawful aspect is not that dominant. And at some point you decide that he's a NE character with slightly, but not very pronounced lawful tendencies. It's not written down anywhere, but what would it be useful for to do so?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 07:54 AM
D&D follows an absolute objective alignment system; shades of grey morality is not and 'cannot' be expressed by it, at least not inherently. Tendencies are not implied by the system (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment).
Actually, yes, it does allow for variations.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

2xMachina
2010-07-04, 08:01 AM
How about a 9x9 alignment system? :smallwink:

3 types of each alignment.

Good? 3 kinds of good. Very, normal, and slightly
Same with the others.

Muahaha, more complexity for the alignment system!

Yora
2010-07-04, 08:01 AM
Make it 27x27x27. More preccision is always better, isn't it?

Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
I think we should quote that very early in every alignment thread.

2xMachina
2010-07-04, 08:10 AM
Make it 27x27x27. More preccision is always better, isn't it?

I think we should quote that very early in every alignment thread.

27^3? How? Must know. And advocate lol.

Yora
2010-07-04, 08:23 AM
First you divide lawful good into "very lawful, very good", "lawful, very good", "not very lawful, very good" and so on. Which should give you a total of 9x9 alignments. Then you do the same thing to each of the 81 alignments.
For example "Very lawful, very good" is divided into "extremely lawful, extremely good", "very lawful, extremely good", "still very lawful, extremly good", and so on. This will give you 729 alignments. And then add a third axis on top of that for a total of short of 20,000 alignments.
I think that should cover all potential character types.

pingcode20
2010-07-04, 08:26 AM
Funky-Neutral-Square?

Gensh
2010-07-04, 10:34 AM
I found it helpful to tack on "active" to different alignment parts. It still doesn't clear up all the problems but it does help a little bit more without making the chart 3D; you wouldn't be aCN, you'd still be CN, but I as the DM know that you're going to emphasize the chaotic part during play. That way, I know beforehand if the neutral guy just doesn't care or if he's some crazy "balance the world" type.

2xMachina
2010-07-04, 11:19 AM
Heck, demand Alignment to be of 2 paragraphs.

1st paragraph. Describe how you act in the Lawful/Chaotic axis. You might, for example believe in freedom of choice, but stick to a strict rule/routine. This is your alignment.
2nd paragraph. Describe how you act in the Good/evil axis. You might, for example believe in doing evil for the greater good. This is your alignment.