PDA

View Full Version : Alignment System



DGB
2012-05-11, 03:05 PM
Sooo.. I've been thinking about the alignment system a bit and came to the conclusion that it really didn't make sense to me.

The problem being that "lawful" and "chaotic" seem to mean almost nothing, lacking a baseline of "law" that can be adhered to...
So if a citizen of one country, who adheres to the rules of his society were to swap places with a citizen of another country, with different laws, would he suddenly stop being lawful and become chaotic instead?

I always liked to think that the "good"-"evil" axis was the baseline of "how nice you were" to other people in general, and the "chaos"-"law" axis represented how and often much you strayed from your actions on average.

In this model the "chaos" would be an indicator for statistic deviation from your alignment, like a good character using "evil" methods for good means would mean he is chaotic as his actions are not majorly good.

A chaotic neutral char would do equal evil and good actions, aka be "bat**** insane".

Thoughts?

Shadowknight12
2012-05-11, 03:27 PM
Sigh. No. Divorce Lawful from actual laws. It's easier to understand it that way. Lawful means an adherence to an external authority, and how much obedience you believe you owe to an authority. Laws are the written and enforced expression of an authority's will, so if you respect the authority those laws emerge from, you will naturally obey those laws.

Chaotic means an adherence to an internal authority (your conscience, ethics, whims, emotions, etc) over any external factor.

A bandit can be lawful even when he's breaking the law by robbing others, because he has an unswerving, faithful obedience to his leader. A member of the city watch can be chaotic, even if he's in charge of enforcing the law, because he's a wild maverick who goes off on his own to do his thing and rarely does things "by the book."

If you take a Lawful citizen from one nation and put them in another, they will analyse the alleged authority they are now under, and decide if they recognise it as an actual authority. If they do, they will obey their laws. If they don't, they will not. This is why a paladin can fight slavery in a country where slavery is legal, because a paladin would not recognise the authority of any king or emperor who legalises slavery, and therefore is under no moral or ethical compunction to obey his laws.

Beleriphon
2012-05-11, 03:34 PM
Sooo.. I've been thinking about the alignment system a bit and came to the conclusion that it really didn't make sense to me.

The problem being that "lawful" and "chaotic" seem to mean almost nothing, lacking a baseline of "law" that can be adhered to...
So if a citizen of one country, who adheres to the rules of his society were to swap places with a citizen of another country, with different laws, would he suddenly stop being lawful and become chaotic instead?

I always liked to think that the "good"-"evil" axis was the baseline of "how nice you were" to other people in general, and the "chaos"-"law" axis represented how and often much you strayed from your actions on average.

In this model the "chaos" would be an indicator for statistic deviation from your alignment, like a good character using "evil" methods for good means would mean he is chaotic as his actions are not majorly good.

A chaotic neutral char would do equal evil and good actions, aka be "bat**** insane".

Thoughts?

Chaos and Law are more confusing concepts that Good or Evil, but they're reasonably well explained in the rules. The problem is combining that things and you end up with relatively poor explanations.

At any rate, Law is the tendency to follow set paths, rules or traditions because they work. New methods are frowned upon unless they are shown to be functional in place of a previous method.

Example, dwarves are generally lawful because they have set traditions. They have laws, traditions and processes that they always use, because they've always used them. They try their best to adapt an existing law to deal with a new concept. In many ways this is similar to how modern courts deal with new legal concepts. For example there are clear rules about what constitutes a "person" in the legal sense, it doesn't include iron golems, but the dwarves happen upon a sapient iron golem that has named itself Hank. What do the dwarves do if there is an argument about the golem being granted citizenship? Well they turn to tradition, previous decision and go through the process of following what their ancestors did to make decisions.

A group of Chaotic halflings have traditions, and very loose concepts of law. If a previous tradition doesn't work, well that's too bad, but they'll figure out something new. In the previous example of Hank the sapient iron golem the halflings don't necessarily following happened before. They'll make a decision based on what they think is right, regardless of previous decisions (within reason).

On a slightly less absurd note I'll suggest a case of theft. The Lawful kingdom has a court, they have processes, they have a method of determining guilt. New decisions made now are followed in the future, and decisions from the past are followed now. Punishment if found guilty is getting a finger removed. It doesn't matter why you did it, or your age, or anything else. If guilty lose a finger.

The Chaotic kingdom the local lord makes decisions of guilt and punishments. There is no formal legal code as such. In the same theft the lord could decide the person is guilty, but because they are a starving child they have to repay the victim through labour.

Add Good or Evil to mix is probably going to determine the end result, and how fair any given process/tradition is to any given party. Good tends towards just and fair results, while Evil is going to benefit one group or even just one person, or just not care how horrible the end result will be.

I suppose my point is that Lawful types respect that codes/rules/laws exist even if they don't agree with a specific set of them. Chaotic types don't by default respect that codes/rules/laws exist, they prefer to take each new experience on its own merits.

Ravenica
2012-05-11, 03:34 PM
The "law" that a lawful character follows doesn't have to be external, any code of ethics that the character follows, no matter how twisted can be attributed to a lawful alignment, provided they follow it regardless of self-interest. If they abide by the code even when some other action could benefit them better it is a lawful act. A chaotic character will do whatever benefits them most regardless of considerations that don't affect the other aspect of their alignment.

NecroRebel
2012-05-11, 03:38 PM
Law and Chaos are ill-defined, but not for the reasons you believe them to be. As Shadowknight points out, Law has nothing to do with the law. Instead, it's the name given for people who tend to follow preset plans or paths, particularly in terms of obeying traditions, while Chaos is about adaptability and spontaneity.

The trouble with the definitions is that they're not mutually exclusive. A Lawful character "tells the truth, keeps their word, respects authority, honors tradition, and judges those who fall short of their duties." A Chaotic character "follows their consciences, resents being told what to do, favors new ideas over tradition, and does what they promise if they feel like it." The trouble arises when you consider that a character who always tells the truth and keeps their word because their conscience tells them to and they consistently feel like doing so, respects authority but doesn't like being told what to do (basically treating authorities well but preferring their own path), honors tradition but seeks a better way, and judges those who fall short of their duties is completely doable and logical, yet is archetypically Lawful and Chaotic simultaneously. In other words, the two aren't actually opposites.

SowZ
2012-05-11, 03:45 PM
Most people seem to play Law and Chaos as the ethical equivalent of loose vs. tight, if you are familiar with poker terminology. Loose would be Chaos, Tight would be Law.

WitchSlayer
2012-05-11, 05:49 PM
I just tend to prefer it as where you fall on the cosmic scale rather than your actions dictate that you are X

KnightOfV
2012-05-12, 12:42 AM
Pretty much what everyone has said. Or you can think of it this way.



So if a citizen of one country, who adheres to the rules of his society were to swap places with a citizen of another country, with different laws, would he suddenly stop being lawful and become chaotic instead?


Stereotypical Lawful person in this situation: "Wow these guys' traditions are totally different from mine. Someone should tell them they are doing it wrong."

Stereotypical Chaotic person in this situation: "These guys' traditions are totally different from mine. That's pretty cool, but I'm still going to keep doing my own thing and not be influenced by them."

So a Lawful person would not necessarily follow another country's laws because they are different from the traditions and rules they believe in. Of course if the country has similar values to what he is used to, he might fit right in.

A Chaotic person would not necessarily follow another country's laws because he doesn't think traditions and rules are important anywhere. Of course if he decides he likes the way things are there, he is free to adopt their customs or combine them with his own ideals.

If a person has no bias to one extreme or the other, (or has a "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" attitude) they are probably Neutral.

TheOOB
2012-05-12, 01:30 AM
I prefer the term "Order" over "Law"

Anyways, here is how I see it.

A Lawful person believes in the importance of tradition and authority, and are unlikely to change the status quo without a very good reason. They are more likely to try making changes through legitimate channels when they do make change. They typically see the means justifying the ends, and are unlikely to break whatever code(s) they follow in order to achieve a goal.

A Chaotic person believes in the importance of individualism and expression. They typically see laws and society as a necessary evil, and will not hesistate to intact dramatic change, having little respect for tradition or the status quo, The typically see the ends justify the means, and are more willing to betray their code(s) to achieve a goal.

A Neutral person believes traditions and authority are important, but only as long as they cause no harm. They will likely attempt to make changes through legitimate channels first, but will use other means if that fails. They tend to stick to their code(s), but understand sometimes rules need to be broken.

For completeness, my take on Good and Evil. In this list, an "innocent" is someone for whom you do not personally know and to your knowledge has done nothing wrong.

A Good person is willing to take risks and make sacrifices to help and innocent person.

An Evil person is willing to harm an innocent to achieve their goals.

A Neutral person is unwilling to harm innocents to achieve their goals, but they also are not willing to take risks or make sacrifices to help either.

For the record, we know Alignments are objective, and not subject to subjective interpretations because spell effects target your alignment, and don't get in ethical debates with you(There is something about you that causes holy smite to deal no, half or full damage to you, based on how the universe/gods judge your actions).

hamishspence
2012-05-12, 02:36 AM
Since it's possible for act act that harms no Innocents to be evil (torturing the guilty, if you go by various splatbooks) and since a pattern of evil deeds tends to be the mark of an evil-aligned character, I tend to prefer a slightly looser definition of evil-

that doesn't say "If you're torturing people to death for pleasure, and harming their souls, and doing various other vile deeds, you're still Neutral if you're only willing to do this to the Not Innocent, unless you become willing to harm the Innocent as well".

An extreme case- but it does illustrate the point.

Jay R
2012-05-12, 10:22 AM
Sooo.. I've been thinking about the alignment system a bit and came to the conclusion that it really didn't make sense to me.

Good for you. You've taken your first step out of D&D rules as rules into considering the issues of actual simulation.

The 9-way D&D alignment system is a construct of the D&D rules, not really matching any real system of values in the history of the world.

Yes, of course you can describe it in terms of people's actual behavior, but no expert ever looked at people's behavior and modeled it as the two-axis alignment system.

Similarly, I could define a system of people's behavior with Meat vs. Vegetable as one axis, and milk vs. cookies as the other axis. I could describe people's behavior in those terms. That wouldn't make it a competent model of human values.

You measure how much sense the rules for swordplay are by comparing it to what happens in real swordplay, right? Consult the experts. It's true that a more experienced swordsman is more likely to hit his opponent, and that he cannot be sure exactly how much damage it will do, so at least that far the simulation is valid. But many of the complexities are lost.

Ask any trained swordsman. I can hit my opponent much more often than I could when I first started learning. It's clear that a simple understanding of how swords work went into modeling the sword rules.

Now, ask any trained observer of human behavior - any psychologist, ethicist, philosopher, or member of the clergy. Do they model human behavior on anything resembling the 9-way alignment system? The answer is no.

A little history: Michael Moorcock wrote stories in which the forces of good (called "Law") were in eternal battle with the forces of evil (called "Chaos"). It was clear in the context of those stories that these were the embodiments of Goodness and Evil. This idea was used in the 3-way alignment system in original D&D, because a system of morality or good vs. evil is a crucial part of nearly any fantasy epic, and therefore necessary in any attempt to simulate fantasy epics.

But many players in the mid-70s, myself included, pointed out that "Lawful" doesn't mean "Good", and "Chaotic" doesn't mean "Evil".

So the developers at TSR had three choices:
1. Admit their mistake and change the D&D terms to Good and Evil,
2. Make the rules clear by explaining the gaming jargon and spelling out that Law and Chaos were being used in a specific sense of Good and Evil, or
3. Try to hide the mistake by inventing an unrealistic and overly complicated game mechanic.

For Gygax, this was always an easy choice.

So since about 1977, we have been stuck with the inaccurate 9-way alignment system. Worse, since D&D has a huge influence on the subculture that includes fantasy, many people learn D&D first and find fantasy stories later. These people are unfortunately led to believe that the 9-way system is somehow connected to how fantasy is written, or even how people behave.

It's not. It's just an unrealistic game mechanic in the biggest fantasy RPG.

J.Gellert
2012-05-12, 12:22 PM
Step 1. Change all "Protection from X" and alignment-specific events so that they only work against "Always X alignment" outsiders.

Step 2. Remove all other mentions of alignment from your system.

Step 3. ???

Step 4. Profit!

PS. The paladin's code stays.

TheDarkSaint
2012-05-12, 12:37 PM
I've always seen the debate between Law and Chaos as one of being able to work in groups.


Lawful people see the benefit and value of working in a group. They understand that sacrifices have to be made (either by themselves, ie, good, or they sacrifice someone ie, evil,) for the benefit of the group. The more lawful they are, the more extreme the sacrifice will be for the group.

Chaotic people are individualists and value their own opinion and judgement over what someone else might think, especially if that someone else is a group. They believe that they know what is best for themselves and it can't be decided by someone else. The more chaotic, the more they hate being told what to do and it may extend to try to protect others liberties (which can create a bit of a paradox, since they seem to know what is best in protecting anothers freedoms). Any sacrifices that they make will be on a one on one basis, so Chaotic Good would make personal sacrifices to help someone else, Chaotic Evil would sacrifice someone else to help himself out.

DGB
2012-05-12, 02:31 PM
Some really nice opinions here :)

I operate under the assumption that the law/chaos system is far too similar to the good/evil system, so it could be subsumed under it.

So my question: could you interpret law/chaos as the likelyhood to stick to / deviate from your alignment more frequently?

e.g a lawful good person would try to do good acts almost exclusively, even if you could do greater good by evil means, a chaotic good person is much more likely to use evil means to facilitate a greater good?

and a chaotic evil person would not be except from doing the occasional good act, or rather be much more likely to do "good" while still staying evil than the run-off-the-mill lawful evil person?

NecroRebel
2012-05-12, 02:41 PM
Some really nice opinions here :)

I operate under the assumption that the law/chaos system is far too similar to the good/evil system, so it could be subsumed under it.

So my question: could you interpret law/chaos as the likelyhood to stick to / deviate from your alignment more frequently?

No, because a person who is willing to do evil acts for a good purpose is Evil or, at best, Neutral with regards to good and evil. If you're willing to hurt, oppress, or kill others, you're Evil. Further, what you're suggesting would make a Lawful Good character somehow "more Good" than a Chaotic Good character, because the CG would be willing to do evil, but LG, NG, and CG are all just as Good as the other two, just different in other ways. That interpretation doesn't fly.

Edit: The problem, perhaps, is that your stated assumption on the similarity between law/chaos and good/evil is outright wrong. You should look at the definitions of those 4 things again and analyze them to know how they differ. This will help prevent you from making faulty interpretations.

2xMachina
2012-05-12, 02:48 PM
Law/Chaos is pretty much perpendicular to Good/Evil. Like an x-y diagram. You could chop x or y off, but forcing x to be y is pretty hard.

hamishspence
2012-05-12, 02:52 PM
A little history: Michael Moorcock wrote stories in which the forces of good (called "Law") were in eternal battle with the forces of evil (called "Chaos"). It was clear in the context of those stories that these were the embodiments of Goodness and Evil.

the TV Tropes Order vs Chaos page mentions those books- and suggests that both Law and Chaos could get pretty nasty- it wasn't a simple Good Vs Evil renaming.

Burner28
2012-05-12, 03:50 PM
Apparently, in the book both sides were portrayed negatively. Is this correct?

MickJay
2012-05-12, 04:04 PM
In Moorcock's books, the whole Law and Chaos conflict is between forces of stability and change. Law tends to be 'good' for the most part, because in books the forces of Chaos are dominant and, unchecked, excessively destructive - but should Law become strongly dominant, it will bring about stagnation.
Early DnD only featured Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic alignements, and was strongly inspired by Moorcock (although Law and Chaos there roughly corresponded to Good and Evil). When Good and Evil were added, Law and Chaos became more about what they are today.

hamishspence
2012-05-12, 04:27 PM
At least one version of Basic D&D- the Eric Holmes version from 1978- had good and evil as well as law and chaos.

It only had 5 alignments though- N, LG, CG, LE, CE.

Later versions of Basic went back to L, N, C, whereas Advanced D&D went with 9 alignments rather than 5.

TheOOB
2012-05-13, 02:54 AM
Since it's possible for act act that harms no Innocents to be evil (torturing the guilty, if you go by various splatbooks) and since a pattern of evil deeds tends to be the mark of an evil-aligned character, I tend to prefer a slightly looser definition of evil-

that doesn't say "If you're torturing people to death for pleasure, and harming their souls, and doing various other vile deeds, you're still Neutral if you're only willing to do this to the Not Innocent, unless you become willing to harm the Innocent as well".

An extreme case- but it does illustrate the point.

Well, first of all, it's pretty much pointless outside of paladin to talk about if a single act is evil or not. You also have to think, considering the setting, is torture neccesarly always evil. Torturing an innocent is sure, but a hated enemy, the murderer of your child, a villain who knows the location of his evil master? While I would never call torture good, there are many situations where it is neither good nor evil(there are no neutral acts, just good acts, evil acts, and acts in between).

If someone tortures people a lot, I can bet you ninety nine to one that they also harm innocents, it's kind of inevitable. If you don't have any problem with inflicting such pain(or worse, you enjoy it), you won't have a problem with hurting someone you don't know.

Besides, Alignment needs to be firmly defined. Remember that alignment is an objective concept, it is an inherent trait of a character that can be detected, affect, and manipulated by magic just as easily as creature type or hit dice.

hamishspence
2012-05-13, 03:51 AM
It's quite a common trope for the meaner kind of fictional vigilante- Dexter, The Punisher, and so forth- that they torture villains as "punishment for their crimes" yet avoid harming innocents.

Evil people compartmentalise according to Savage Species, treating those they consider "beneath them" brutally while treating their peers and their loved ones with respect.

In this case "peers" is "everyone who is Innocent" and "those they consider beneath them" are "the Guilty".

It isn't just paladins who Fall for evil acts- there's the Holy Liberator PRC, and exalted characters (any character with an exalted feat).

Once the character is "repeatedly, deliberately" committing these evil acts, their Good or Neutral alignment should be called into question.

Agent_0042
2012-05-13, 10:16 AM
The short answer is that Law and Chaos don't actually mean anything. The long answer is this (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends#Law_and_Chaos:_Your_Rules_or_M ine.3F).

hamishspence
2012-05-13, 10:36 AM
WotC's Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a) has some interesting things to say on the subject.