PDA

View Full Version : How Chaotic is Chaotic?



Reddish Mage
2013-08-28, 12:14 AM
I was looking up support to find that a Chaotic individual doesn't need to generally and reflexively disobey laws, find trendy alternatives to tradition, treat their word casually and generally behave like a teenager having a rebellious meltdown 24/7. However, I noticed reading very plainly that the literal description of a "chaotic individual" is suggestive of such craziness:


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.

Note it didn't say something like "Chaotic characters favor their own moral compass and inclinations over rules/laws/codes/traditions, they do not follow rules that conflict with their own understanding of what to do in a particular situation, nor do Chaotic characters follow rules that seem to them as antiquated and inconvenient." I'm looking for sources that would suggest that Chaotic characters may only disobey laws, rules, traditions, code, etc in specific (but common) circumstances for specific reasons (that they may appeal to on a fairly regular but not-continous basis) and be counted as Chaotic.

kyoryu
2013-08-28, 12:42 AM
What you're suggesting shows a fundamental respect for laws, but a willingness to break them in certain circumstances. That's not Chaotic, it's Neutral. Even Lawful people may break laws that make no sense.

Now, a Chaotic character doesn't have to compulsively break the law. It's an alignment, not a personality disorder. A sane Chaotic person generally won't break laws in most cases. Not because of an inherent respect for the law, but because the penalties for getting caught aren't worth the gain of breaking the law.

Of course, a Chaotic Good person won't break laws that restrict the harm of people because, duh, they harm people. That's because they respect the person, not the law.

A "realistic" Chaotic character believes in individual freedom and the benefits over individuals acting in their own best judgement over codified rules passed down by "somebody". They think that authority is inefficient and ineffective, and that hierarchical structures are counter-productive.

They may accept "authority" in some cases, but will always argue for it to be the minimum possible. Same with laws - they may grudgingly accept the need for some amount of laws, but will always argue for the least amount of laws as possible.

A Chaotic Good character will probably accept laws regarding not harming others (as they recognize there is evil in the world), but will argue vehemently against laws and regulations that are aimed at what people "should" do - they would generally believe that each individual has the right to decide for themselves.

This doesn't mean they're evil, or even self-centered (that's what the whole neutral/good/evil axis is for).

A Chaotic Evil character may find themselves okay with being the *head* of an organization (since that means *they're* not restricted) but will likely do a poor job of it - think Robert Baratheon, though you could make arguments for CN as well as CE. They'll happily indulge their whims, but their lack of organizational skills (because they fundamentally don't *believe* in it) will generally lead to the collapse of their organization.

A Chaotic Good person at the head of an organization would likely try to minimize its power, or grant more power to the "underlings" if he couldn't step out of the position entirely. A Chaotic Good person will generally be uncomfortable giving orders, as they strongly believe individuals should be allowed their own choices.

Now, compare that to a Lawful character. Lawful is really a bad name - it's about *Order*. Lawful characters believe in the power of order and organization. Whether that's for their own benefit (LE), or for the benefit of all (LG), the fundamental belief in the power of organization remains. They may accept the argument that laws and rules can create some minor inefficiencies or loopholes, but will argue that the benefits of having a solid, concrete set of orders and laws that people can rely on and that is known to all far outweighs the minor inefficiencies that may come with those rules.

TuggyNE
2013-08-28, 12:42 AM
I was looking up support to find that a Chaotic individual doesn't need to generally and reflexively disobey laws, find trendy alternatives to tradition, treat their word casually and generally behave like a teenager having a rebellious meltdown 24/7. However, I noticed reading very plainly that the literal description of a "chaotic individual" is suggestive of such craziness:



Note it didn't say something like "Chaotic characters favor their own moral compass and inclinations over rules/laws/codes/traditions, they do not follow rules that conflict with their own understanding of what to do in a particular situation, nor do Chaotic characters follow rules that seem to them as antiquated and inconvenient." I'm looking for sources that would suggest that Chaotic characters may only disobey laws, rules, traditions, code, etc in specific (but common) circumstances for specific reasons (that they may appeal to on a fairly regular but not-continous basis) and be counted as Chaotic.

Just note two things: first, that Chaotic doesn't mean stupid (and Chaotic characters will try to avoid obviously self-destructive/unhelpful behavior unless they're pretty far gone); second, that different individuals of the same alignment can behave rather differently.

That said, Chaotic characters really do generally dislike laws, traditions, and customs for their own sake, even if they recognize the necessity of not rocking the boat at any given time. If a character doesn't have that deep drive against restrictions, they might just be Neutral.

kyoryu
2013-08-28, 12:45 AM
Just note two things: first, that Chaotic doesn't mean stupid (and Chaotic characters will try to avoid obviously self-destructive/unhelpful behavior unless they're pretty far gone)

Alignments aren't personality disorders, regardless of alignment. That's one of the most common misconceptions I see.

TheOOB
2013-08-28, 12:59 AM
The "Law-Chaos" alignment axis doesn't just refer to willingness to obay laws. A Chaotic person is someone who tends to base their decisions on the immediate situation at hand, and as a result tends to look more at the short term and local consequences of their actions over the long term. They are less concerned with laws and traditions, and think that each situation should be judged on it's own merits. They are less likely than lawful individuals to follow a code of conduct, and those who do are still more likely to see the ends as justifying the means, and thus be willing to break their code if they think it will be worth it. Chaotic people's strength lies in their flexibility and adaptability, but their weakness lies in their short sightedness.

A lawful person on the Law-Chaos axis is someone who bases their decisions on the far reaching world view, and as a result they tend to look more at the long term and distant consequences of their actions. They strongly respect laws and traditions, and tend not to break them without good reason, not wanting to change a working system unless they have to. They tend to follow a code of conduct, and will usually follow it even if doing so would be disadvantageous in the current situation, considering their code to be worth more than most temporary gain. Lawful people's strength lies in their ability to think ahead and perceive the consequences of their actions, but their weakness lies in their inflexibility.

A neutral person on the Law-Chaos axis is mostly concerned with the here and now, but still considers the long term consequences of their actions when making decisions. The respect laws and traditions, and prefer to make changes from within a system than without. They often follow a code of conduct, and try their best to follow it at all times, but they understand sometimes practicality must take precedent. Neutral people lack the vision of lawful people, and the flexibility of chaotic people, but also have the weaknesses of neither.

Side note: Lawful people are more common than chaotic people, and, as a general rule, neutral people prefer the company of lawful people to chaotic ones.

lsfreak
2013-08-28, 01:12 AM
I don't see how short-sightedness versus big-picture has anything to do with chaotic versus lawful. It's just as likely a chaotic person bends or breaks laws because they think in a given situation following a given law will lead to greater harm; while a lawful person may be inclined to ignore long-term consequences because it's not their responsibility, but the responsibility of those who made and enforce the laws.

EDIT: And to the OP, let's analyze more closely:
//Chaotic characters follow their consciences//
That is, they may have very nuanced ideas of what's right or wrong, and don't follow laws blindly. This does not mean chaotic characters do whatever they feel like, they do what their moral compass/conscience compels them too. They may very much want to smash someone's face in, but won't because of moral reasons (in addition to any social or legal reasons). Of course, they may also have a very screwed up conscience, just like anyone else could.

//resent being told what to do//
I take this to mean, they dislike being ordered. In ethical dilemmas, they'd prefer to work things out for themselves rather than have a moral code forced upon them that they must abide by. They'd prefer to volunteer for a task rather than have it forced on them, and be free to do the task as they see fit rather than have to do it in a very specific fashion.

//favor new ideas over tradition//
I'd agree this isn't worded the best, but my interpretation would be that they don't allow tradition to blind them. New, good ideas are accepted and poor, traditional ideas are rejected. Innovative ideas may be favored over more straightforward, expected ones - given two solutions to a scenario with similar effort involved and similar risks/rewards, the new, interesting one will probably be taken over the old, boring one.

//and do what they promise if they feel like it.//
This is the one I don't completely agree with. I'd say it's just as likely that they avoid promising things so that they avoid having expectations placed on them, or to avoid the stigma of breaking on. My IRL answer to "Can you do me a favor?" is "Maybe," never "Yes."

Lord Raziere
2013-08-28, 01:17 AM
a conversation between chaotic characters:

CG: People should be free to what they want, y'know as long as nothing bad comes of it, perhaps we can work out the exact ratio of freedom and rules for optimal freedom without suffering…
CE: screw that, I just want no rules period. screw the rules. my desires is what is important. none of you are actually real anyways, since I don't actually know your thoughts, therefore its ok to kill everyone since I'm the only one who can possibly exist.
CG: what? solipsism? I guess thats why your evil then…
CN: dude, I'm just away from the law's eye ok? keep things secret and such, don't tick off anyone and you can get away with anything you want, you two are the crazy ones for outright defying the law…
CG: Because the law might be wrong. sometimes it needs to be changed or defied for real good things to happen.
CE: your both idiots, the law is always wrong, kill it with fire, and lets resolve our differences like we naturally should: killing each other, like animals, much more honest and works things out much simpler. those who survive, win.
CG: No.
CN: No.
CG: Society is important! highly structured society might lead to oppression, but the right amount of society makes for healthy living for everyone.
CN: yea and civilization gives me food and stuff, and a home, and whatnot. so what if I do a few things under the table? as long as its not destroying the bigger structure, whats wrong with it?
CG: nothing, but you really should be more active, try to evoke actual change than just survive and live it out, actually try to improve things rather than be some isolate or hermit who is content to do nothing about it.
CE: your both idiots, thinking that the law will allow you to exist. your both gullible and will end up allowing the law to control you despite all that you do, I'm just going to plain destroy it all, screw em by breaking every law I can, show how much respect I have for their lies they call rules.

so I'd personally say that it depends on how evil the Chaos is. CG and CN are more reasonable in their freedom, but CE is where it goes completely bonkers.

TuggyNE
2013-08-28, 01:45 AM
Alignments aren't personality disorders, regardless of alignment. That's one of the most common misconceptions I see.

Right, sorry; I meant more "far gone in stupidity", not so much "far gone in Chaos".

Slipperychicken
2013-08-28, 01:56 AM
Chaos is more about not having a set-in-stone moral code, a hatred of formal authority, and the willingness to disobey authority whenever it is convenient.

A chaotic person will text you, then walk away mid-conversation because he got bored. He feels no compulsion to follow conventions like saying goodbye.

A chaotic person will borrow things and never return them (or return them damaged, late, and smelling strongly of pot), because it is convenient for him to default on his obligations when there are no consequences for it. Meeting expectations is not a concern for him unless it impacts him directly.

A chaotic person will mistrust law enforcement officers, who he sees as little more than uniformed thugs, hitmen, and bullies. They don't protect the people; they just enforce the state's arbitrary will.

A chaotic person will despise taxes, which he views as a large-scale extortion racket by the biggest criminal organization of all: the state.

When a chaotic person obeys, it is because he would either have done so of his own free will, or he has been coerced by threats of punishment into submitting. He does not follow laws out of respect for them, or for the institutions which they represent. He only does what someone tells him when he thinks he will benefit from it.

A chaotic person will strongly desire to leave formally-governed areas because they are too constraining. The lawless wilderness is the perfect place for a Chaotic person; no constraints, no government, no inhibitions.

I've known some people who I would describe as "chaotic". They chafe constantly at the idea that anyone should be restrained at all. They subscribe to the idea that everyone should be totally free, even to kill one another. They despise the idea of government, because they consider all governance as tyranny for holding the threat of coercive force over everyones' heads.

Porthos
2013-08-28, 02:21 AM
A chaotic person will text you, then walk away mid-conversation because he got bored. He feels no compulsion to follow conventions like saying goodbye.

A chaotic person will borrow things and never return them (or return them damaged, late, and smelling strongly of pot), because it is convenient for him to default on his obligations when there are no consequences for it. Meeting expectations is not a concern for him unless it impacts him directly.

No, these are just people being rude anti-social jerks. :smallwink: Sadly you can find such people all across the alignment scale. :smallannoyed:


A chaotic person will strongly desire to leave formally-governed areas because they are too constraining. The lawless wilderness is the perfect place for a Chaotic person; no constraints, no government, no inhibitions.

Generally speaking, with some exceptions, people don't act like Slaads. Sure there are some that take things to extremes. But most people who are of a Chaotic bent are perfectly fine with The System IF they agree that it is working properly.

If not.... Well that's when their Chaotic bent comes into play.

NB: I presume this question is coming up because of a discussion over in the OotS section over alignments in general and Elan of OotS in specific (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300190). Just so people have the background to all of this. :smallwink:

Remmirath
2013-08-28, 02:32 AM
Although unstated, I always act as though there are various degrees of alignments. Chaotic, neutral and lawful are all a bit more varied than only the extremes. Some are more chaotic than others who are still chaotic.

Exactly how a chaotic person will act will, of course, also depend on where they fall on the good/evil spectrum.

Mostly I look at chaos/law as being a question of both how ordered one's thinking tends to be, and how much one likes or puts up with rules and regulations and so forth. A chaotic person is much more likely to just do whatever they feel like, when they feel like, unless there's some specific reason not to do so, whereas a lawful person is more likely to plan the whole day out. A chaotic person will go along with rules or social norms if they feel there's some good reason for them, they were common sense anyhow, they have to do it or face the consequences, or some such, but a lawful person might go along with them just because it's expected. That kind of thing.

The descriptions of the alignments in the manuals have shifted around a fair amount each edition, and often there's something a bit odd about some (or all) of them. I find it's better to just go off of the alignment names more than the manual descriptions and then do things that make sense.

kyoryu
2013-08-28, 02:34 AM
You're describing not only Chaotic, but also extreme selfishness - which would be somewhere in the neutral-to-evil (and more evil than neutral) area.


A chaotic person will text you, then walk away mid-conversation because he got bored. He feels no compulsion to follow conventions like saying goodbye.

A CG person probably wouldn't. He would say goodbye not because it's a convention, though, but because he'd learn that you get hurt if he doesn't.


A chaotic person will borrow things and never return them (or return them damaged, late, and smelling strongly of pot), because it is convenient for him to default on his obligations when there are no consequences for it. Meeting expectations is not a concern for him unless it impacts him directly.

Again, there's some neutral-to-evil in here. A Chaotic Good person generally respects the rights of others, and will return property in good shape. Again, not because of some societal expectation, but just because it's what he'd want done to him.


When a chaotic person obeys, it is because he would either have done so of his own free will, or he has been coerced by threats of punishment into submitting. He does not follow laws out of respect for them, or for the institutions which they represent. He only does what someone tells him when he thinks he will benefit from it.

Again, neutral-to-evil. Robin Hood is practically the definition of CG - and that he didn't just do what benefitted him.

A Chaotic Neutral-to-Good person, if they're working with others, prefers consensus over authority.


A chaotic person will strongly desire to leave formally-governed areas because they are too constraining. The lawless wilderness is the perfect place for a Chaotic person; no constraints, no government, no inhibitions.

Neutral-to-Evil. The "no inhibitions" thing isn't a principled stance as much as it is childishness. Most CN types, and all CG types, recognize the rights of others. You must recognize the freedom of others if you wish to have it yourself. The issue is not so much wanting to engage in every impulse (again, that's childishness bordering on a personality disorder), as it is freedom from coercion.

A CN or CG person may be willing to work with others, but they'd want this to be based upon consensus and a meeting of equals, not upon authority and orders.

I'm avoiding the government aspects of this deliberately.


I've known some people who I would describe as "chaotic".

I guessed. But frankly I think these people have issues beyond "chaotic", extreme selfishness at a minimum, possibly into personality-disorder-land.


They chafe constantly at the idea that anyone should be restrained at all. They subscribe to the idea that everyone should be totally free, even to kill one another.

That's pretty crazy, and shows some serious issues. I've known a number of people that... fit the political stereotype you're describing... and even the most hardcore of them wouldn't argue that people should be free to murder each other.

So I don't think that's necessarily a trait of "Chaotic". I think it's a trait of very evillish neutral at best, more likely "evil", and very possibly some kind of personality disorder.

BWR
2013-08-28, 02:50 AM
A spoiled rich brat can be an excellent example of CN. One who has always had his way, never been properly disciplined, can usually get away with anything with little more than a slap on the wrist. Only their own desires (and to a lesser extent, their friends') mean anything, not because they are actually cruel or malicious, but simply because they have never really had to face consequences or see that other people are, well, people.
They don't see a law and feel the need to flaunt it just because it's a law. They don't feel the need to kill people just because. But when they want to do something, like party all night and trash the common room at the inn, they don't see a problem. Just throw some money at it and all is well. Or just ignore it: stupid killjoys. If a neighbor has an awesome new racehorse, there's nothing wrong with sneaking in and taking a ride. They aren't stealing it, they are just taking it out to see what it can do, and honestly they were going to give it back so what's the problem?

lsfreak
2013-08-28, 02:58 AM
I'd agree with Porthos and Kyoryu; what you've described as "chaotic" would be like describing "lawful" as someone who will hold grudges for minor social slights, ruthlessly tracks loans or favors and will never consider the other person's situation when calling them in, believes that law enforcement have a right to tear up someone's property and detain them indefinitely with the slightest suspicion, and supports fascism as an ideal form of government.

TriForce
2013-08-28, 03:48 AM
at its basis, chaotic means a desire for freedom, something that can take many forms.

as a basic example, the sentiment that respect is earned, not given, can be considered chaotic. chaotic people value the chance to make their own mistakes, make their own decisions and be the person the most responcible for what goes on in their life.

this however, does not mean that they wont make concessions if they determine it to be worth it. chaotic people are just as likely to keep their promises as neutral or lawful people (altough probably less likely to MAKE the promises in the first place)

i also disagree that lawful people are more common then chaotic ones, or the idea that neutral people favor lawful people over chaotic. both in roleplaying games and in real life, people are people, and they can have any sort of reasons for liking or disliking certain personality aspects, none of wich have anything to do with alignment

Driderman
2013-08-28, 04:02 AM
For my part, I mostly view Chaotic [alignment] as the willingness to break laws, promises, etc to further the views of the other part of ones alignment.
So basically, if you're Chaotic Good, you'd be willing to break the laws to do good, if you're Chaotic Evil you're willing to break laws to do evil.

Same model goes for the other alignments, inversely of course for Lawful alignments where it represents the unwillingness to break laws and such to further the other part of your alignment.

Lorsa
2013-08-28, 05:11 AM
If I were to describe myself in terms of the D&D (3.5) alignment scale, I would place myself at chaotic good. I follow my conscience as much as I can (I have even been accussed of being conscientious). I try to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because of some structural guidelines. I resent being told what to do - unless there is a good reason for it, and have in the past (I've grown up) questioned "orders" frequently when they made no sense to me. It's part of the reason I decided it wasn't a good idea to do the one year military training that many people in Sweden did back then. There seemed to be so many unnecessary rules; how could the way you made your bed possibly influence the outcome of a war or efficiency in a combat situation? I would've challenged those kind of orders and I would have gotten into trouble for it - so best to avoid it altogether. I don't think "it's tradition" is a valid argument for anything. I value ideas and laws based on the arguments for their moral implications not beacuse "we've always done it this way". For example, in Sweden a lot of drugs are illegal because of the negative effects on yourself, and that it sometimes leads to hurting others. The very same arguments that are used to illegalize drugs can be used for alcohol, which is legal becuase "it's tradition". I find that to be incredibly redicolous and either they should illegalize alcohol or legalize other recreational drugs. I often feel like doing what I promise though, because it's the right thing to do in most cases. If you don't then people get hurt. On the other hand, if I promised to say, keep quiet about a certain topic but I end up in a situation where telling a person about it might make life better or easier for the person who shared said secret then why should I let a promise stand in the way? I follow my conscience first.

Now I am not stupid, I do realize that not all people are like me, which means that we might need certain laws for our society to function. I do break many laws without feeling the slightest remorse for it though, some because I simply don't agree with their existance (like the anti-pirate laws), others because breaking them makes things smoother for everyone (going against red with my bicycles instead of pressing a button, waiting for it to be green and stopping traffic unnecessarily). However, most laws I do follow, and I don't feel any deep-seated urge to break them "just because". Chaotic doesn't mean disruptive, or stupid, or self-destructive.

Chaotic good is the best alignment because...

Slipperychicken
2013-08-28, 10:45 AM
That's pretty crazy, and shows some serious issues. I've known a number of people that... fit the political stereotype you're describing... and even the most hardcore of them wouldn't argue that people should be free to murder each other.

I do agree with you that truly Chaotic people have issues (after all, why else would anyone want to reject the protection civilization has to offer?), and I personally believe that most humans actually tend toward Law and Goodness. Chaos and Evil are abominations which defy common human values (order, virtue, justice, faithfulness, selflessness, honesty, etc... hmm these look a lot like Law and Goodness, don't they), and those violators are shunned accordingly; we consider anyone who seriously embraces chaos or evilness to be a lunatic at best, and a monster at worst.

I have actually seen a number of people tell me, in all seriousness, that freedom is to be held above all, and people should be allowed to murder one another. I'm not describing a stereotype, just what I've observed.


how could the way you made your bed possibly influence the outcome of a war or efficiency in a combat situation?

There's hygiene; if your bed is clean and properly made, you should be less likely to catch diseases. Efficiency; if it's made right, then it won't take up any more space than necessary, no one will slip on your covers while running past your bed to do something important. Also discipline; doing everything a certain way (and the same way as everyone else) should help keep good order and enforce cohesion.

awa
2013-08-28, 11:01 AM
keep in mind a chaotic person might be a hipicrite who likes all the laws and regulation so long as they only apply to other people. In my mind i see the chaotic evil person not wanting to abandon society and live in the wilderness in a kill or be killed world he wants the perks of society he just doesn't want to pay in his fair share.

Morgarion
2013-08-28, 11:04 AM
I do agree with you that truly Chaotic people have issues (after all, why else would anyone want to reject the protection civilization has to offer?), and I personally believe that most humans actually tend toward Law and Goodness. Chaos and Evil are abominations which defy common human values (order, virtue, justice, faithfulness, selflessness, honesty, etc... hmm these look a lot like Law and Goodness, don't they), and those violators are shunned accordingly; we consider anyone who seriously embraces chaos or evilness to be a lunatic at best, and a monster at worst.

I have actually seen a number of people tell me, in all seriousness, that freedom is to be held above all, and people should be allowed to murder one another. I'm not describing a stereotype, just what I've observed.

I don't think Kyoryu was trying to make the case that chaotic behavior is worse than lawful behavior. I can't speak for him or her definitively, but it seems like he or she was taking issue with your consideration of chaos as worse than law. There's nothing inherent to a chaotic alignment that makes it mutually exclusive with justice, selflessness, virtue or honesty.

Segev
2013-08-28, 11:08 AM
There is an "alignment chart" that breaks it down into very solid rules of thumb:

Good = "Nice Person"
Evil = "Jerk"
Lawful = "Plays by the Rules"
Chaotic = "Doesn't Play by the Rules"


And yes, it's possible to have a "jerk with a heart of gold" and a "nice" evil person who manages to pet the dog in all the little ways while being a complete monster in the important ones. But the above is a solid rule of thumb by which to go.


So, a Chaotic Good person is a nice guy who doesn't play by the rules. Many "jerks with a heart of gold" are really in this category and are trying to PRETEND to be less good then they are.

A Chaotic Neutral person just has no respect for the rules or possibly delights so much in "thinking outside the box" that he'll defy the rules just because they're convention. However, that doesn't mean he's an idiot or a compulsory rule-breaker. He just views rules as, at best, suggestions. They're something other people think he should be doing, and if there's good reasons to follow that advice, he may well do so. But he won't be constrained by it if it's inconvenient.

A Chaotic Evil person is a jerk who doesn't play by the rules. He really is a jerk, not just pretending, and to him "rules" are things the powerful impose on the weak by making it in their best interests to obey. Generally because disobedience brings pain and death. He's not even likely to exploit rules to his advantage simply because that requires too much attention to be paid to them. He's not above it if it's convenient, but he'll likely get bored of it if he has to work at it for too long or too hard.

A Neutral Evil person is, as the rule of thumb puts it, a jerk. He's in it for himself and screw everybody else. If he's "nice," it's just because he enjoys the adulation and gratitude of others, and he'll burn them to power his steam engine for another half hour if he'd enjoy that extra half our of power more than their company. He absolutely understands the benefits of rules, mainly as they can benefit him. He'll play by them as long as it's to his advantage, but cheerfully break them when following them no longer is. The separation from Chatoic, here, is that he's not out looking to break the rules; he's just willing to when it helps out Number One.

A Lawful Evil person does respect and play by the rules. He'll exploit the heck out of loopholes and corner cases, and he'll take everything the rules will give him, but he recognizes that his power over others stems from their obedience to the same rule set, so he will not violate it and will turn the full force of the enforcement mechanisms on anybody who attempts to, because the rules empower him. He's a jerk, and will happily use the rules to get somebody legally offed. He doesn't respect the rules because they bring order that is itself desirable; he respects the rules because they bring order and he hopes to be running that order one day.

A Lawful Neutral person is an inside-the-box, by-the-book fellow. Rules provide order and easy ways to get predictable results. Consistency is his byword, and efficiency results from everybody knowing what to do and doing it. He may or may not love Byzantine bureaucracy; if he does, it's because he feels the order is worth the hassle. If he does not, he views it as overly-complicated rules, but feels the best way to fix them is to do so from within the system. He doesn't delight in suffering, but recognizes that sometimes it's necessary for order to be maintained.

A Lawful Good person is a nice guy who plays by the rules. Rules exist to provide a baseline against which people's actions can be measured, and to help everybody know how to fairly deal with each other. He respects freedom in that he feels people should be allowed to do what they want so long as they're not hurting others (just as the CG person believes in rules so that people have a social contract which makes it easier to know what is 'fair' when dealing with each other kindly). But the LG person believes that adhering to laws, even when they're imperfect, still leads to better results than conditional exceptions to the rules. He will work vehemently to change laws that cause more harm than good, and may even establish his own principle on which to take a stand against the existing rule set. Law can war amongst itself over differences in legal opinion, after all. But he's not likely to support simply ignoring and breaking rules. If a rule is bad, it needs to be changed, not merely ignored where convenient.

A Neutral Good person is just a really nice guy. HE cares about others. He supports rules because rules provide a fair arbiter of how people should interact, but he sets the benefit of people above the rules, and will happily grant exceptions when needed to preserve compassion and mercy to those who are not attempting to abuse it. Unlike the CG person, he will not object to extensive legal systems and protections, but he is also far less likely than the LG person to allow a loophole to let the guilty get away with it. Like the NE person, he is willing to break the rules, but prefers to work within them because he recognizes their utility.

Reddish Mage
2013-08-28, 11:18 AM
What you're suggesting...it's Neutral. Even Lawful people may break laws that make no sense.

A "realistic" Chaotic character believes in individual freedom and the benefits over individuals acting in their own best judgement over codified rules passed down by "somebody". They think that authority is inefficient and ineffective, and that hierarchical structures are counter-productive.

They may accept "authority" in some cases, but will always argue for it to be the minimum possible. Same with laws - they may grudgingly accept the need for some amount of laws.

A Chaotic Good person at the head of an organization would likely try to minimize its power, or grant more power to the "underlings" if he couldn't step out of the position entirely. A Chaotic Good person will generally be uncomfortable giving orders, as they strongly believe individuals should be allowed their own choices.

Using the word law in place of "laws" "rules" "traditions" "authority," etc. I was trying to offer a dichotomy between "usually against law generally" vs. "against laws that lead to suboptimal outcomes, are inconvenient, or interfere with your inclinations." I take this as a vote for the former being the threshold for Chaos. But, if being willing to dispense with laws because your inclined to do something else makes you neutral (rather than displaying a general unwillingness to be subjected to law), I think we have a problem in that most D&D Chaotic characters (such as in the OOTS storyline) are neutral by this view. Haley generally follows Roy's and formerly the Thieves guild leadership for example, and she only would violate the rules put in front of her when she saw an opportunity or had a disagreement. Even Xykon has no problem subjecting other people to rules so long as he can break them.

What I'm looking for is official D&D evidence that, yes, you can be chaotic and only break certain laws for certain reasons (just more reasons and more laws than a lawful person would).


The "Law-Chaos" alignment axis as a long-term outlook vs short-term on the moral consequences

Side note: Lawful people are more common than chaotic people, and, as a general rule, neutral people prefer the company of lawful people to chaotic ones.

I think that in both the case of good and lawfulness behavior in D&D is judged in an outlook in which an typical person who usually follows the law and does mostly good acts and very minor bad ones is neutral. To be good you have to be willing to go out of your way (you are extra generous with your time, money, heart, etc) and to be lawful you are inclined towards efforts that show law is important to you.



To the OP, let's analyze more closely:

Your analysis greatly expands what I am trying to say, but I am looking for sources and not just opinions.


.NB: I presume this question is coming up because of a discussion over in the OotS section over alignments in general and Elan of OotS in specific (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300190). Just so people have the background to all of this. :smallwink:

Yes, when I see an alignment perspective that seems completely out of left field. I tend to wonder if the vagueness in the D&D rules really allows that perspective.

All too often, I find that without a Hamishspence level of knowledge of D&D sourcebooks, I have nothing.


If I were to describe myself in terms of the D&D (3.5) alignment scale, I would place myself at chaotic good.

This is exactly the sort of personality I would place as Chaotic. If someone where to say your personality is neutral. We would end up with the default being lawful.

Porthos
2013-08-28, 11:43 AM
I do agree with you that truly Chaotic people have issues (after all, why else would anyone want to reject the protection civilization has to offer?), and I personally believe that most humans actually tend toward Law and Goodness. Chaos and Evil are abominations which defy common human values (order, virtue, justice, faithfulness, selflessness, honesty, etc... hmm these look a lot like Law and Goodness, don't they), and those violators are shunned accordingly; we consider anyone who seriously embraces chaos or evilness to be a lunatic at best, and a monster at worst.

It seems to me that you are making the classic mistake of equating Law with Good and Chaos with Evil . They're not the same. Not in a D&D sense. which is what we are talking about.

And 'truly' Chaotic? Or 'seriously embraces'? That's just redefining the term Chaotic to such an extreme as to be unworkable in human society. One could make such a redefinition of Lawful with little difficulty.

What you are talking about might work if we were talking about the world of Elric, or something like that. Emphasis on might. But D&D? Not a chance.

I have actually seen a number of people tell me, in all seriousness, that freedom is to be held above all, and people should be allowed to murder one another. I'm not describing a stereotype, just what I've observed.

I think you need to get better acquaintances. :smallwink:

Segev
2013-08-28, 11:51 AM
I have actually seen a number of people tell me, in all seriousness, that freedom is to be held above all, and people should be allowed to murder one another. I'm not describing a stereotype, just what I've observed.

That level of "freedom" is a paradox. If you insist that nobody can tell anybody else not to murder people, because that's infringing on their freedom, then you demand that Bob cannot prevent Tim from killing Bob without violating Tim's freedom. But since Bob should, by the same logic of absolute freedom, be free to live if he wants, Tim is violating Bob's freedom by killing him when Bob wants to live.

If you're going to insist that enforcement of any rule is unacceptable, will you fight for others' rights to not having their freedom impinged? If so, you are impinging the rights of those against whom you fight to kill/enslave/whatever they're doing to impinge on those others' freedoms.

Those who adhere to this as logically and consistently as possible will not do anything against anybody, and allow themselves to be enslaved or slaughtered. This inevitably leaves only those who do not believe this philosophy and impost tyranny as the surviving rulers, and those who believe this philosophy or have no choice to survive as their slaves.

So, in following this philosophy, they lead to tyranny. Thus, this is not a tennable version of "chaotic."

"Chaotic Evil" is the only tennable alignment that allows murder, because it values freedom only for "me, me, me!" Everyone else can be enslaved because MY freedom is all that matters, and MY desire is for THEM to do what I want!

Chaotic Neutral values freedom of everybody, and generally accepts that this means others have a right to defend themselves. It also isn't just about breaking or having no rules; it's simply about not caring what the rules are except those which one sets for oneself. And even those are mutable.

Chaotic Good also values freedom for everybody, but inserts a "right to swing your fist ends at another's face" clause, restricting freedoms to the "don't hurt others" level even more than does CN.

kyoryu
2013-08-28, 11:53 AM
Using the word law in place of "laws" "rules" "traditions" "authority," etc. I was trying to offer a dichotomy between "usually against law generally" vs. "against laws that lead to suboptimal outcomes, are inconvenient, or interfere with your inclinations." I take this as a vote for the former being the threshold for Chaos. But, if being willing to dispense with laws because your inclined to do something else makes you neutral (rather than displaying a general unwillingness to be subjected to law), I think we have a problem in that most D&D Chaotic characters (such as in the OOTS storyline) are neutral by this view. Haley generally follows Roy's and formerly the Thieves guild leadership for example, and she only would violate the rules put in front of her when she saw an opportunity or had a disagreement. Even Xykon has no problem subjecting other people to rules so long as he can break them.

As opposed to what, compulsively breaking every law just because it's there?

I don't think there's specifically a rule saying that, though I believe this comes close:


Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.

Most people that I know that I would call "chaotic" (as in, generally value autonomy and individual freedom over structure)... follow the laws and pay their taxes. That's why I really dislike the "lawful" term, as it implies that if you're not Lawful, you're just constantly breaking laws.

I'd consider myself generally chaotic in that way, and I... follow the law and pay my taxes.

In a group, a Chaotic(N/G) person will quickly ask "Okay, so have we decided what we're going to do?". A Lawful(N/G) will ask "Okay, so who's in charge?"

And that describes me. In almost any team I'm a part of, I instinctively push towards more collaboration, and less hierarchy. Even when in a leadership position, I prefer to give advice and guidance rather than orders.

It's fair to say that a Chaotic person will chafe in a strongly authority-based structure. But that's pretty much exactly the same as a Lawful person operating in a more peer-based, consensus driven structure.

I'm guessing that there's a background to this question - specifically, I'm guessing you've got a player in your game that has a "Chaotic" character and is using that as an excuse to do every kind of disruptive behavior possible, and compulsive break every law and generally disrupt the game.

*If* that's the case, it's not really a rule issue - it's a disruptive player issue, and should be handled as such.


If you're going to insist that enforcement of any rule is unacceptable, will you fight for others' rights to not having their freedom impinged? If so, you are impinging the rights of those against whom you fight to kill/enslave/whatever they're doing to impinge on those others' freedoms.

Most sane people that prioritize individual rights and freedom still recognize the right to self defense. The selfish behavior described would primarily be called evil, if not just mentally ill with a personality disorder. For people like that, satisfying their impulses is the real drive, and any philosophy that backs it up is just a rationalization.



Chaotic Neutral values freedom of everybody, and generally accepts that this means others have a right to defend themselves. It also isn't just about breaking or having no rules; it's simply about not caring what the rules are except those which one sets for oneself. And even those are mutable.

Chaotic Good also values freedom for everybody, but inserts a "right to swing your fist ends at another's face" clause, restricting freedoms to the "don't hurt others" level even more than does CN.

In general a neutral person will look out for themselves, but not to the extent of actively harming others. I like to use the phrase "impinge on the rights of others" (mostly meaning "natural rights"), as there's no reason a neutral person wouldn't engage in honest competition.

A good person will actively engage in acts that help others, even at cost to themselves.

An evil person will happily trounce on others if they feel it gets them what they want. Again, it's not compulsive - they're still capable of being rational. A truly intelligent evil character can look awfully good or neutral - it's about self-interest to the exclusion of everything else, and if self-interest is served by looking like a good guy, then shine up the halo.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-28, 12:06 PM
That level of "freedom" is a paradox. If you insist that nobody can tell anybody else not to murder people, because that's infringing on their freedom, then you demand that Bob cannot prevent Tim from killing Bob without violating Tim's freedom. But since Bob should, by the same logic of absolute freedom, be free to live if he wants, Tim is violating Bob's freedom by killing him when Bob wants to live.


Yeah, I'm a political science minor who's read Rousseau; I know why "total freedom" doesn't work. The "chains" of civilization sacrifice some freedoms (like killing people and stealing things on a whim) to give us others (like the freedom not be killed or stolen from).



"Chaotic Evil" is the only tennable alignment that allows murder, because it values freedom only for "me, me, me!" Everyone else can be enslaved because MY freedom is all that matters, and MY desire is for THEM to do what I want!


Not necessarily; my acquaintances claimed to be perfectly comfortable with the idea that someone could do all manner of unspeakable things to them under their own philosophies. I got the impression it was a real, if absurd, ideological viewpoint, rather than a mere justification for doing bad things to people.

Porthos
2013-08-28, 12:08 PM
What I'm looking for is official D&D evidence that, yes, you can be chaotic and only break certain laws for certain reasons (just more reasons and more laws than a lawful person would).

The problem is, D&D gives a few lines in summary of general behavior and then says "Figure it out yourself" when it comes to other situations.

A 'for instance'. The famous bit of advice that "Lawful people don't always have to follow the law"? Didn't appear in a D&D supplement. It was from an online WotC column giving advice to people who were having problems with the concept of a paladin having to respect the laws of whatever nation they traveled to. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Which is just so bonkers on the face of it that one wouldn't think such a column was necessary in the first place.

Now I suppose some of the supplements out there have looked at alignments in more depth. And very probably given contradictory answers. :smallwink: I believe Champions of Ruin looked at this. And I know the Book of Exalted Deeds also examined alignment more closely.

But the 'core books'? It's very much a 'Here are general principles. Now use some common sense and work the rest of it out yourself' situation.

====

As for people tending toward Law/Good/Chaos/Evil/Neutrality, that might be fine in Real Life (which can't be explored on this board in any great detail :smalltongue:). Problem is, the very same rules in D&D that give vague descriptions to alignments ALSO say that Humanity is not predisposed to any alignment, including flavors of neutrality.

One interpretation of this is that approx 1/3rd of all humans in D&D (more or less for drifting) are some flavor of Chaotic. After all, if Humanity isn't inclined to one alignment or another it must be pretty well represented all across the spectrum.

If so, we need a pretty expansive definition of the term instead of a restrictive one. If only because it's kinda silly on the face of it to presume that 1/3rd of a population is brimming with barely withheld fury at a system and is just One Bad Day from trying to overthrow it all and get rid of laws altogether. :smallsmile:

Segev
2013-08-28, 02:22 PM
Not necessarily; my acquaintances claimed to be perfectly comfortable with the idea that someone could do all manner of unspeakable things to them under their own philosophies. I got the impression it was a real, if absurd, ideological viewpoint, rather than a mere justification for doing bad things to people.

Sorry, by "tennable" I meant "practicable in a population that follows it," not "able to be held while protected from the consequences of adhering to them by others who do not."

Reddish Mage
2013-08-28, 03:12 PM
The problem is, D&D gives a few lines in summary of general behavior and then says "Figure it out yourself" when it comes to other situations.

A 'for instance'. The famous bit of advice that "Lawful people don't always have to follow the law"? Didn't appear in a D&D supplement. It was from an online WotC column giving advice to people who were having problems with the concept of a paladin having to respect the laws of whatever nation they traveled to. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Which is just so bonkers on the face of it that one wouldn't think such a column was necessary in the first place.

Now I suppose some of the supplements out there have looked at alignments in more depth. And very probably given contradictory answers. :smallwink: I believe Champions of Ruin looked at this. And I know the Book of Exalted Deeds also examined alignment more closely.

But the 'core books'? It's very much a 'Here are general principles. Now use some common sense and work the rest of it out yourself' situation.

====

As for people tending toward Law/Good/Chaos/Evil/Neutrality, that might be fine in Real Life (which can't be explored on this board in any great detail :smalltongue:). Problem is, the very same rules in D&D that give vague descriptions to alignments ALSO say that Humanity is not predisposed to any alignment, including flavors of neutrality.

One interpretation of this is that approx 1/3rd of all humans in D&D (more or less for drifting) are some flavor of Chaotic. After all, if Humanity isn't inclined to one alignment or another it must be pretty well represented all across the spectrum.

If so, we need a pretty expansive definition of the term instead of a restrictive one. If only because it's kinda silly on the face of it to presume that 1/3rd of a population is brimming with barely withheld fury at a system and is just One Bad Day from trying to overthrow it all and get rid of laws altogether. :smallsmile:

Yep, the situation is: Core D&D gives generalities, and the supplements (particularly Champions of Ruin, BOED BOVD) give answers that are contradictory as well as inherently problematic.

That notion that humanity isn't inclined towards an alignment, including neutrality, to mean that all alignments exist in the same proportion is a very problematic notion and I'm not sure if that was what was meant. This means that a 1/3 of the human population is evil! Either that term becomes so diluted by this notion as to be mean very little indeed or that's one seriously messed up society.

I take that messed up society as flowing from something similar to my criteria of Chaos by the way. Evil people usually don't do bad, but they do so when advantageous, when convenient, or when it suits their inclinations. The diluted concept of evil would follow from something like anyone with a tendency towards mild wrongdoing was evil.

BRC
2013-08-28, 03:26 PM
Alignments are tendencies, not absolutes. It's also somthing of a sliding scale.

Lawful means the character has an inherient respect for order, rules, and proper procedures. They don't blindly follow laws, but they respect the idea of law. If there is a law that inconveniences them, but they could break with absolutely no consequence, then a Lawful character would still follow that law.
Now, the particular set of Laws may vary. If a Lawful character believes that one of the Rules of a good society should be that all citizens should be free, and they encounter a society where slavery is legal, the Lawful character could still break the law and free slaves out of a belief in a higher law that invalidates the unjust laws of the society.

A Chaotic character has an inherient distrust or dislike of laws and rules. They may still follow them for a variety of reasons, but they do so for those reasons, NOT because they are Rules.

A Chaotic character may not steal because they feel that stealing is wrong, or because they know that if they steal the police will arrest them. However, those facts exist independently from the fact that there is a piece of paper somewhere that prohibits Stealing.

A Chaotic character can come in many forms. Your archetypical barbarian is Chaotic because he grew up in a society with very few rules not defined by the laws of nature and reality. He dislikes rules because they restrict a freedom he is used to. Meanwhile your Archetypical (good-aligned) urban theif is Chaotic because she realized long ago that Rules by themselves mean nothing, that stealing is only bad if you are stealing from the needy or if you get caught, so there is no reason not to steal from those with plenty if you think you can get away with it.


An argument could be made that an "evil magistrate" Type character could be Chaotic. They think other people are fools for following the rules, but have no problem using the rules for their own ends. If they could kill you without consequence they would, but they can't. However, they CAN accuse you of some crime and have you thrown in the dungeon to rot, and that has far fewer consequences. The important thing is that they have no respect for the sanctity of the law, only for it's practical effects. Their disregard for the sanctity of the very rules they use to achieve their ends makes them more dangerous, as they have no trouble following and breaking rules whenever it's convenient for them.


at the same time, those three characters I mentioned could be twisted into Lawful versions. That Barbarian could feel himself beholden to a strict code of honor, and while things like "All visitors to the imperial city must have the proper papers" are stupid and pointless, he would feel compelled to repay somebody who saved his life. The Theif may freely break the laws of the city, but would never dream of breaking the unwritten rules of the underworld. They will empty a duke's coffers, but they would never steal from another thief. That Magistrate may feel that the rules grant them true legitimacy, that what they are doing CANNOT be wrong because were it wrong then it would be illegal for them to do it.


So yeah, its less about following/not following rules, and more about why they would choose to follow those rules. It comes down to consequences, in the absence of consequences a Chaotic character will break an inconvenient rule, a Lawful character will follow it.

hamishspence
2013-08-28, 04:09 PM
That notion that humanity isn't inclined towards an alignment, including neutrality, to mean that all alignments exist in the same proportion is a very problematic notion and I'm not sure if that was what was meant. This means that a 1/3 of the human population is evil! Either that term becomes so diluted by this notion as to be mean very little indeed or that's one seriously messed up society.

Quintessential Paladin 2 actually described this setup, as well as the "evil is much rarer" setup:

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path of good but stronger action is not warranted.

In such a campaign detect evil cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. If he casts detect evil on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses detect evil on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.

Grinner
2013-08-28, 04:09 PM
D&D alignment is a flawed model. Therefore, all conclusions made from it are also flawed.</partypooping>


Alignments aren't personality disorders, regardless of alignment. That's one of the most common misconceptions I see.

They should be.

Think about it. "Manic-depressive with Good tendencies".

Lorsa
2013-08-28, 04:42 PM
D&D alignment is a flawed model. Therefore, all conclusions made from it are also flawed.</partypooping>

The same argument could be made for ALL models. So I fail to see how it would be especially valid for D&D.

Grinner
2013-08-28, 06:32 PM
The same argument could be made for ALL models. So I fail to see how it would be especially valid for D&D.

Because it's especially flawed.

kyoryu
2013-08-28, 09:06 PM
A Chaotic character has an inherient distrust or dislike of laws and rules. They may still follow them for a variety of reasons, but they do so for those reasons, NOT because they are Rules.

I prefer to think of Chaotic characters as being in favor of personal freedom and self-determination, rather than being anti-law. I think a lot of the negative cast of Chaos is that it's often described as being *against* something (law) rather than *for* something.

After all, we don't primarily define Lawful characters as being against personal freedom.



If so, we need a pretty expansive definition of the term instead of a restrictive one. If only because it's kinda silly on the face of it to presume that 1/3rd of a population is brimming with barely withheld fury at a system and is just One Bad Day from trying to overthrow it all and get rid of laws altogether. :smallsmile:

Yeah, again, that's why I typically prefer "Chaotic = pro personal freedom and individuality". It's just as workable, but doesn't have the negative stereotype.


Think about it. "Manic-depressive with Good tendencies".

That would be cool. Also known as "use the random personality generator in the 1e DMG to come up with your character."

Which I've done.

danatblair
2013-08-28, 09:37 PM
to a certain extent I see my maximum chaotic tendencies defined by the maximum amount of tolerance my fellow players have. If doing something chaotic could harm them, or derail a campaign past being salvage, I won't do.

While some might see that as meta, I do feel like being respectful of other players is important.

i have played some very cg and cn characters, even in systems that would nto use those terms. While it is fun to be spontaneous and flexible in my approach to problem solving I don't want to make it so i am the only one solving problems. CN, when it gets going, can be a bit selfish out of simple absent mindeness. If i am playing an annoying fast tallking scam artist, I will hold back some and let others interact and play.

I will still run amuck at times and do my own thing, but just try not to step on everyones toes

Lorsa
2013-08-29, 04:48 AM
Lawful = Authorative
Chaotic = Liberal

I suppose you could argue that lawful is also conversative and chaotic reformative but if you currently have a very liberal society then the chaotic person would try to keep it that way (being conversative) whereas the lawful person would want to change it (being reformative).

It seems a lot of people get confused due to the wording, being of lawful alignment doesn't mean you're always following the rules, and being chaotic doesn't mean you do chaotic things. Unless of course you define chaotic things as following your conscience rather than a strict code of conduct.

SethoMarkus
2013-08-29, 07:55 AM
D&D alignment is a flawed model. Therefore, all conclusions made from it are also flawed.</partypooping>

It is a flawed model if compared to real life.

As a gaming tool, that the DM has final say over, I fail to see how it is inherently flawed. What the system has done with the alignment table may be inconsistent, but the model itself is no different than a Wet/Dry, Warm/Cold diagram. You can interpret this as either all/nothing or as a scale, and people can argue forever whether being a little damp counts as being wet or since they are mostly dry it doesn't.

Humans are argumentative and have free will- this will lead to disagreements in almost any system, especially if personal gain can be made from one interpretation.

So yes, the alignment model in D&D is not perfect, but I do not see it any more or less flawed than any other simplistic comparison.

kyoryu
2013-08-29, 01:44 PM
D&D alignment is a flawed model. Therefore, all conclusions made from it are also flawed.</partypooping>

Not sure I agree with that statement. I think that there are certain things that it says, and within those limits, it works.

I think that there are several "problems" with it, though:

1) Misconceptions, and some choices in wording

2) People wanting it to say more than it does - that is, to be the sum total of a person's personality

3) People treating it as nothing but extremes, rather than large categories

4) It seems to be mostly based on Deontological principles, rather than Utilitarian ones. If you approach things from a Utilitarian-based viewpoint, it will be a poor match

Grinner
2013-08-29, 07:39 PM
2) People wanting it to say more than it does - that is, to be the sum total of a person's personality

This, in essence, is what I had been saying. It was made for a game in which ethics are an objective cosmic force. It in no way reflects ethics as we are subject to them, and without giving consideration to that fact, interpreting the model is folly.

MukkTB
2013-08-29, 09:04 PM
Chaotic by its definition does whatever it wants. Trying to pin it down is not something it would stand for.

Reddish Mage
2013-08-30, 11:20 AM
Quintessential Paladin 2 actually described this setup, as well as the "evil is much rarer" setup:

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path of good but stronger action is not warranted.

Evil As A Choice
...minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil.

I note that for the low-grade evil of the level we are speaking about to count would make it very easy for a Paladin to fall. The very example in Quintessential Paladin implies that if the Paladin was the bailiff, the Paladin would fall for evicting granny in support of the landlords greed. Also, avoiding "associating with evil" is rather difficult if you can't maintain a social circle in mainstream society without a couple of evil people coming to the party.



[In response to Grinner's assertion of alignment system being a flawed model] Not sure I agree with that statement. I think that there are certain things that it says, and within those limits, it works.

Actually, here we are discussing things based on what the description says


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.

Now if an allegedly Chaotic person truly resents authority in general, treats their word and responsibilities casually, and avoids traditional practices to the extent that they are constantly experimenting with novel diet options and differing alternative lifestyles, everyone will agree that he is Chaotic.

However, I want to say most Chaotically aligned do not go to these extremes. Someone who regularly disregards rules because they don't agree with his inclinations and moral sentiment, but doesn't have a problem with the concept of rules in general, and may even desire a level of guidance and regulation, can qualify. My impression of elven societies (for example) from the sourcebooks I've read is that they do have a fairly decent level of laws, authorities, and traditions.




I think that there are several "problems" with it, though:

3) People treating it as nothing but extremes, rather than large categories


Yes, I consider the problem as one of extremes. However, I'm still lacking examples of Chaotic people and societies from sourcebooks that fit my moderate model of Chaos (as well as neutral characters and societies that do not fit).

hamishspence
2013-08-30, 11:48 AM
Also, avoiding "associating with evil" is rather difficult if you can't maintain a social circle in mainstream society without a couple of evil people coming to the party.

That might be an overly wide definition of "associating"

It also helps if Detect Evil is defined as something a Paladin only does when absolutely necessary, rather than all the time.

skyth
2013-08-30, 12:43 PM
One way I've always viewed the Lawful versus Chaotic axis is thinking about the needs of the many versus the needs of the few. Chaotic is about the needs of the individual whereas Lawful is about the needs of the group.

Good an evil, I see by how widely that applies, whether only for yourself or for everyone.

For instance, Lawful Good cares about the needs of the group and every group in existance.

Lawful Evil only cares about their group.

Chaotic Good cares about the well being of each individual.

Chaotic Evil only cares about thier own well being.

Arkhosia
2013-08-30, 01:17 PM
How I consider a chaotic character is one who, while not necessarily the " rules are made to be broken" guy, feels that rules should never be allowed to get in the way of what they feel is right.

Chaotic good thinks: "Rules and promises, while Fundemental, should never get in the way of protecting innocents. I will never hesitate to do so if given the opportunity."
This is different than Good, which will adhere to rules if it benefits the greater good, and Lawful Good, who refuses to ever break the rules unless absolutely necessary.

Chaotic Nuetral thinks: "I don't care if the rules of your community keep it in order, If my goals require me to break them, I'm more than happy to."

As opposed to Nuetral, who doesn't care what the world thinks, but will not gen on anyone's bad side if he can, and Lawful Nuetral, who, although he just wants to acheive his goals, he respects the law and will not break it if he can help it.

Chaotic Evil thinks: "I won't let anyone or anything get in my way! Not you, your damn laws, or your opinions will stop me! If my goals dictate I need to crush anyone like a bug, I will gladly.

On the other hand, Evil just wants to reach his goal and is more than willing to do what he needs to, but will not get the authorities on his bad side, and Lawful Evil, who will reach his goal discretely and subtly, twisting laws and traditions to his benefit.

Reddish Mage
2013-08-30, 01:46 PM
That might be an overly wide definition of "associating"

It also helps if Detect Evil is defined as something a Paladin only does when absolutely necessary, rather than all the time.

Agreed about associating, associating only applies to knowingly befriending someone who is evil.

I don't know what you mean by defining Detect Evil. I'd agree an NPC paladin without an unusual personality quirk that justifies liberal usage of the ability would probably not be using Detect Evil casually. They would only be using detect evil if they were investigating wrongdoing or to identify specific evil items, creatures, places they were looking for.

SquidOfSquids
2013-08-30, 02:32 PM
I think it's helpful to think in terms of CG vs LE and LG vs CE instead of law vs chaos in general.

For those of you familiar with political science, CG = Locke and LG = Hobbes.

A LG character (Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasty,_brutish,_and_short#Part_I:_Of_Man)) believes that without laws, people would be free to do all sorts of bad things to each other (CE behaviour). He argues against trying to overthrow governments in the name of justice/freedom (CG behaviour), because he believes that overthrowing government inevitably leads to chaos and strife. Even if government is sub-optimal (LN or LE), it is still better than the chaos that would result if people felt like they had a right to revolt whenever they got pissed off at the government (ie the French revolutions, or Egypt/Syria today). However, he does make an exception in cases where the government is actively trying to deprive you of your life. In this case, you are justified in fighting back, but only so long as the threat to your life continues.

Basically, LG is strongly opposed to CE. LG thinks that CG is misguided, and leads to a slippery slope towards CE. LG finds LE tolerable, if only to prevent total chaos (CE) from happening.

A CG character (Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government#Second_Treatise)) would argue that laws and government are an extension of each individual's natural rights. Locke thinks that governments were originally formed when individuals willingly outsourced their right to enforce their own personal and property rights (ie to punish thieves) to a government. When a government starts to deprive people of their freedoms (ie taxation without representation), it loses its legitimacy and should be overthrown.

Basically, when the government is not oppressive, CG and LG get along just fine (although they may debate politics now and again). However, when the government turns LE, CG will seek to overthrow the government. Unlike LG, CG is willing to risk total chaos (CE) rather than live under a LE government.

hamishspence
2013-08-30, 05:40 PM
I don't know what you mean by defining Detect Evil..

What I mean is- how accepted is it? Can the paladin use it freely, or is it considered highly insulting- or maybe even an "illegal search" or nearest equivalent?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html

Reddish Mage
2013-08-31, 05:32 PM
What I mean is- how accepted is it? Can the paladin use it freely, or is it considered highly insulting- or maybe even an "illegal search" or nearest equivalent?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html

There's a question about how noticeable detect evil, and what exactly observers would see if they see anything (treating detect evil as the paladin staring intently at people could lead to some rather amusing misinterpretations). My 21st century middle-class etiquette standards suggest that it would be rude to do that sort of thing casually and habitually, but is likely acceptable if the paladin is on "business." Habeas corpus is a modern anachronism.

I think it is highly insulting to casually be inspected without reason and a paladin that does this every chance she gets, with every NPC encountered, is at very least slowing down the game. At the very least, I would put up enough silly and distracting situations to at least teach the paladin to be more measured with their ability.