Neighbor Alignments vs. Close Alignments

[QuintonBeck]

So, we're all familiar with the alignment chart and its layout.

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/090/c/0/dungeons_and_dragons_alignment_chart_by_theprinces sofchaos-d4uk03u.png

Left to right Lawful to Chaotic and Up Down Good to Evil, but a lot of neighbors on the alignment chart aren't that similar despite their proximity. Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral are quite a bit different and Lawful Good and Neutral Good are equally pretty likely to be at odds.

I've found myself that some alignments are actually more similar to each other even though they're not near each other on the alignment chart, Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil is perhaps the biggest one. Only one's level of willingness to commit Evil acts really divides the two in most games I've seen and I've seen others on the board say the same.

I've also found personally, though this may be a fluke rather than a solid comparison, but Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good, if focused on the same goal, can actually get along very well despite the polar opposites they represent. If I had to guess I'd say it might come down to the CGs willingness to bend the rules and the LEs willingness to interpret them in such a way that they aren't actually bent so much as slipped between. Both types are schemers to a certain extent who want to slip through and get their own thing done and I think that may lend to my experience with their general good working relationship.

In the opposite but close I've found LGs and LNs to often approach things vastly different seeing as LNs need only worry about one strong aspect without worrying about how it might affect the other as LGs tend to have to do. And of course NEs and NGs are vastly different than TNs though I attribute that more to their having an ethos at all vs TNs much more indifferent reactionary outlook.

So, Playground, what other alignments have you experienced to be similar or vastly different in spite of, or perhaps even due to, their proximity to one another on the alignment chart?

[Segev]

My own experience is different, but it stems perhaps from the fact that I tend to, when alignment concerns really come up, step it back and use this simplistic version as a baseline:



Nice Guy
|
Plays by __________ Does not Play
the Rules by the rules
|
Selfish Jerk


Thus, to me, a CG and a CN don't have nearly the disagreements you think they do. Both value "not playing by the rules," but the CG guy also values being nice, while the CN guy simply has qualms about being actively mean.

In a deeper sense, the Chaotic side of the alignment bar values freedom, particularly personal freedom. CG characters value freedom as a natural right, and tend to temper it still with a "your right to swing your fist ends at my face" sort of logic. They value freedom AS a good thing. CN characters instead recognize freedom as a natural state. Controls are something you place on yourself. Your right to swing your fist is yours, but recognize that others will swing back (and that starting a brawl right now may not be a good idea). CN characters will also band together to stop somebody from using his right to swing his fist to threaten people who can't individually swing as hard in order to deny them their freedom. CG and CN often agree on this principle. CG and CN would disagree that they should band together to stop somebody from swinging his fist just to swing it into faces. CN folks will tend to see that as the owner of the face's problem for longer than will CG folks.

CE folks, on the other hand, won't bother banding together unless they gain more for themselves. They see no value in any constraints on their own behavior, but also don't see value in banding together to stop a stronger tyrant from placing constraints. After all, they'll all backstab each other, so ganging up isn't going to work long. Best to be strong enough to be the biggest face-puncher around.

Where CN and NE folks should agree is on the personal freedom...insofar as it's the person talking whose freedom is in question. NE is selfishness. Do anything you want or need to to get what you want. He'll follow and even enforce laws on himself and others if the system works for him. CN types see that as unacceptable, because that's a bigger face-puncher trying to deny others their freedom. CN types see everybody as being free and responsible for their own happiness. NE types see themselves as the sole valuable beneficiary, and all others as tools to manipulate or dominate or use up for their ends.

LE and CG really can't work together. The nice guys who don't play by the rules will never get along with the selfish jerks who play by (and write) them and enforce them on others. More deeply, LE types work WITHIN the system for their own selfish ends. They will allow themselves to be constrained by rules, but see nothing wrong with exploiting every loophole to get what they want. CG types will never accept the ruthless exploitations of the LE tyrants; when the rules are the only thing justifying a cruelty, the CG types will chuck the rules and do the nice thing.

CG characters value, again, personal freedom. LE types deplore it. CG types see responsibility only to their consciences. LE types see responsibility to the system because the system protects and empowers them.

LGs and LNs definitely can oppose each other. Any of the alignments can oppose their neighbors. But LGs and LNs have a strong point of agreement: the law is important and must be upheld. The LNs, however, won't see value in working to find ways to manipulate the law to achieve ends just to be nice. Nor will they see value in changing the law if it has cruel consequences. The efficiency of the law is all that matters.

LNs uphold the system and feel responsibility to the system because they believe that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. They are as likely as LEs to see sacrifices of individuals (particularly freedoms, but also of unfortunate cruelties) as acceptable where it benefits the overall system and its efficiency. They also are as likely as LGs to see that a system which leads to greater overall individual happiness is a better system than one that leads to greater overall individual misery. But they're not going to lose sleep, the way the LGs are, over a system that achieves "greater good" through less than pleasant means for certain (possibly innocent) individuals.

LNs would not walk away from Omelas. LGs would. NGs and CGs and possibly CNs might even lead a war to overthrow it. Or at least try to break the system's lynchpin.

[Duke of Urrel]

A separate conflict is that between the modernizing gods of most clerics and the more primitive gods of most druids. This can create serious dissension even between characters of exactly the same alignment or of two adjacent ones.

Yes, it's possible for CG and LE to co-operate for short periods of time, but I can't imagine any long-term friendship emerging here, because of completely opposite ultimate goals.

Even LG and CE can work together for a limited time. Suppose a demon really wants to destroy an Evil enemy. What better and more under-handed way to do that than to enlist the help of a paladin, who'll be happy to fight Evil for you?

[Chronos]

I have never, in any game, seen any meaningful conflict between lawful good and neutral good. At most, the neutral good characters will have good-natured jokes about the paladin having a stick up his behind. Even lawful good and chaotic good won't generally have much conflict beyond the level of stern lectures.

[Rijan_Sai]

Even LG and CE can work together for a limited time. Suppose a demon really wants to destroy an Evil enemy. What better and more under-handed way to do that than to enlist the help of a paladin, who'll be happy to fight Evil for you?

That demon better be one heck of a Bluffomancer while wearing lead fullplate. Fighting and destroying Evil for the sake of Good is a good thing, but (alternate-alignment Paladins aside) no Paladin would ever agree to help a force of Evil, even for the "Greater Good." (Because a Paladin should know, or at least have a reasonable chance to realize, that helping a demon, even against another power of Evil, will never lead to "Greater Good," only more, or at least different, evil.)

[Red Fel]

That demon better be one heck of a Bluffomancer while wearing lead fullplate. Fighting and destroying Evil for the sake of Good is a good thing, but (alternate-alignment Paladins aside) no Paladin would ever agree to help a force of Evil, even for the "Greater Good." (Because a Paladin should know, or at least have a reasonable chance to realize, that helping a demon, even against another power of Evil, will never lead to "Greater Good," only more, or at least different, evil.)

Agree in part, disagree in part.

I agree that an LG Paladin would never work with a known Evil character for any extended period. But notice that I have emphasized several parts to this: An LG non-Paladin (there are LG characters other than Paladins, you know) is not bound by the Paladin code, and could easily have any number of reasons for collaborating with Evil; Even a Paladin could have a diplomatic conversation with Evil, which is not the same think as collaborating or working with Evil; Even a Paladin could actually work with Evil, if only for a brief period, so long as it wasn't an on-going thing.But let's take this a step further: I think LG and LE get along great.

That's not sarcasm. I happen to think that LG and LE have a lot in common. Both recognize a need for order. Both appreciate honor and obedience. If clerics, both likely come from a rigid and hierarchical religious group. Both recognize the value of laws. Both may even believe in protecting one's team and subjects, to varying degrees of "protect." It's the little definitions where they disagree - things like what "the good of the people" or "proper discipline" mean.

Frankly, I see Lawful alignments getting along with each other much better than Chaotic or Neutral alignments might, although I recognize that there may be exceptions.

[Segev]

Eh, the clever demon just sets it up such that the Paladin is in a position to stop his enemy, and makes sure to compromise his own evil just enough that the Paladin isn't going to have anything TO thwart on the clever demon's end. So the Paladin has to go fight the demon's foe, even if he knows it helps the demon. After all, he's not going to REFUSE to stop the demon's foe from having that orphan schmorgasboard to complete his ritual to enslave the elf-kingdom and turn all who oppose him into mindless undead, is he?

[Red Fel]

Eh, the clever demon just sets it up such that the Paladin is in a position to stop his enemy, and makes sure to compromise his own evil just enough that the Paladin isn't going to have anything TO thwart on the clever demon's end. So the Paladin has to go fight the demon's foe, even if he knows it helps the demon. After all, he's not going to REFUSE to stop the demon's foe from having that orphan schmorgasboard to complete his ritual to enslave the elf-kingdom and turn all who oppose him into mindless undead, is he?

Xanatos, is that you?

[Segev]

Xanatos, is that you?

Of course. But since our interests align, there's nothing you can do about it other than what I've laid out. Also, I got tips from Batman.

[excruciarch]

-Daddy, please explain why good heroes kill trolls?
-You see, son, they kill trolls to weed out evil.
-Why evil heroes kill trolls then?
-They do it to satiate their evil urges.
-I see no real difference between them...
-That's because we are trolls, son.
PS
I really love supplementary alignment system devs used in nwn series. It shows how far on the certain axis of a given alignment your character is. It is also good for showing that let's say your CN(10,35) character is more prone to spontaneous and mildly evil actions and why characters with different alignments can act in a similar way. It also makes DMs life easier in regards of keeping track of someones behavior when it comes to shifting the aligment of a character.
http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Alignment

[QuintonBeck]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the neighbor alignments are more likely to conflict than the non-neighbors but just that sometimes it seems that aligned characters may end up with camps composed of those who they share less alignment similarities than they might think.

I totally agree with your interpretation that a CG character of the people and freedom would never work with a LE tyrant, but LE does not a tyrant make. As an example from the game in which I saw LE and CG work surprisingly well, the LE guy was a cleric willing to bend the rules and slip through holes in the system to accomplish his goals which happened to align with the CG character's goals and so he led the CG character through the loopholes, allowing them both to profit without retribution from the higher ups. And yes, while they both dealt with moral matters quite differently, the LE character was willing to let some good be done so he'd continue to have a helpful person on his side and the CG person couldn't help but appreciate the help through navigating the legal system to accomplish their Good goals. Now, some might argue that that isn't CG, and maybe it isn't, maybe it's NG, but the situation still stands that the two got along well together and their different outlooks complimented one another and worked surprisingly well together. As I said, it may have been a fluke, but it's what prompted this thought.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with your view of CNs. They're very much concerned with their own personal freedom and thing others should be too but your portrayal of them as different from NEs in that they desire everyone to be free seems to lean a little closer to CG than CN. A CG character is a freedom fighter looking to protect people from a corrupt system, a CN is the smuggler working under the radar of the system to supply people with what they want, whether its good things or bad things. At least, in my mind that's what they are, and since a NE could very well be a similar smuggler, maybe dealing in worse things, maybe not, they seem more similar than CG and CN. (Addendum, a CG could in this situation be a smuggler too, but I imagine such a character would be more likely smuggling in things to help the people or supplying some resistance with what they need.)

Agreed Red Fel, the Lawful types do tend to be the easiest to make work together. LG and LE (of the non overly zealous Paladin variety) could very well work together famously as most of their disagreements would come up over little things, not the overarching structure and planning.

Chronos, most definitely agreed, not a lot of conflict crops up between LG and NG or NG and CG. NGs are the ultimate nice guys. If I had to pick an alignment most likely to get along with everyone I'd pick NG.

[Segev]

It's a matter of what they value and what they're willing to do.

CN characters value freedom. Their own primarily, but everybody's is "sacred" at least a little, because CN characters do have enough empathy to recognize that the only logical way one can argue for one's own rights is to argue that others have equal ones.

Your CN smuggler thinks the whole "tariff" or blockade system that makes his smuggling illegal is bunk, and deserves to be ignored. That it makes him a profit in so doing is even better, of course. If the laws are stupid and circumventing them makes him more money than adhering to them, cool! He will protect himself in his perfectly-justified trade, which might mean he'll kill others who are "just doing their jobs" when it comes to trying to stop him. He's not going to start hunting down and murdering people just because they might be witnesses (though he might bribe or even threaten them).

The NE smuggler has no respect for, but no particular distaste for, the law. He may even be the sort to actively support keeping the laws in place that make his smuggling illegal: he can charge more for smuggled goods than for legal ones, and he has less competition which drives natural prices up still further. He'll have no qualms about killing anybody who gets in his way or threatens his business. Where the CN guy may or may not have some professional and moral pride in dealing honestly with his clientelle, our NE guy will only have the professional pride so far as it promotes his reputation as trustworthy enough to do business with. If he can get away with gutting a client nobody would miss, stealing his payment, and selling the same goods to somebody else for still more? The NE guy likely has no problem with this. The CN guy is more likely to balk, especially as it involves murder.

Just like your LE and CG duo, the CN and NE duo of smugglers could work together. They could do it even longer than the LE and CG duo: the LE cleric is not going to refrain forever from exploiting the law in cruel ways, or he's going to drift into LN. But the CN and NE smugglers will still have a falling-out. The CN guy had best watch his back as his NE partner will sell him out in a Prisoner's Dilemma (barring a much deeper partnership than merely sharing a business relation), and the NE guy will be consistently frustrated by the "risks" the CN guy takes to avoid expedient murders. The NE guy will also probably have...hobbies...that the CN guy is uncomfortable with, while the CN guy is likely to want to respect the freedoms of others in ways that irritate the NE guy (who'd just as soon treat others as deserving of freedom only insofar as it benefits him to allow it).

[QuintonBeck]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, I'm not trying to say they're the same alignment at all, but just that their viewpoints line up more than some of their neighbors might.

As you said, while conflict will come from handling of situations between the NE smuggler and CN smuggler I can't see a CG working with a CN smuggler for a pure-for profit/give the people what they want basis and would be more likely to insist they bring in stuff to help the people rather than just what was in demand. A NE would be all about whatever brings in the most profit and that would be what the people were demanding and the CN, believing in freedom and choice of people would align with him on that point much more easily than he would the do gooder CG.

I agree the LE would risk drifting towards LN with constant restraint but it wasn't constant, when things got tense and there wouldn't be time for questions viciousness shined through and he dragged the CG character with him through it. It's an interesting dynamic.

But are there any other experiences with alignments that seem quite opposed working out that anyone has had or thought of?

[Randomocity132]

Something of our own creation filled in the gaps.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/156/1/3/5_by_5_alignment_chart_by_doaspotcheck-d3i5jfy.png


Just for funsies.

[Chronos]

Quoth QuintonBeck:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the neighbor alignments are more likely to conflict than the non-neighbors but just that sometimes it seems that aligned characters may end up with camps composed of those who they share less alignment similarities than they might think.
Then again, even characters of the exact same alignment might find themselves in very different camps, too. To use an example from Order of the Stick, can you really imagine Redcloak and Daimyo Kubota working together on, well, absolutely anything? And Roy and Miko didn't exactly get along well, either.

[Segev]

I can't see a CG working with a CN smuggler for a pure-for profit/give the people what they want basis and would be more likely to insist they bring in stuff to help the people rather than just what was in demand.I dunno. All it would take is the CG smuggler agreeing that the laws against shipping in this stuff are garbage. It would help if the stuff being shipped in was much-needed and was being denied or overcharged for due to taxes, of course. The CN smuggler would be fine with selling for less than the "legit" market; he makes it up in volume if the prices are really that inflated. If it's needed and simply denied, then he still can charge an arm and a leg. His CG partner might irritate him for going soft and taking a hit for hard-luck cases, but even a CN guy is likely to have his heart-strings tugged occasionally.

The CG/CN smuggler team would work best in smuggling against oppressive regimes, but could still work even in places where the duo simply agree there's no good reason for the laws. Perhaps it's a nanny-state bit of LG do-gooding that insists people aren't wise enough to buy arcane goods without a government inspection and a license to make sure they're not evil. CG-smuggler thinks it better to let him, the seller, pick and choose to whom he sells, while CN-smuggler thinks it's none of the government's business what people do with it as long as they're not hurting anybody else. Or maybe even if they are, depending on just how gray his Neutrality is.

CG-smuggler will tend to pull CN-smuggler even further from murder to protect their trade, favoring taking greater precautions and stealth over being willing to execute people for just doing their jobs in trying to stop them.

But the CN smuggler who bit back disgust at the NE smuggler's proclivities would simply have to recognize that he has to allow for the CG smuggler's biting back disgust at his own.




A NE would be all about whatever brings in the most profit and that would be what the people were demanding and the CN, believing in freedom and choice of people would align with him on that point much more easily than he would the do gooder CG. "What brings the most profit" is almost universally - particularly with black marketeering - "what people [are] demanding." The NE smuggler is more likely to gouge than the CG one, absolutely, but their disagreements would largely come from methods and means, still. NE-guy is going to sell to anybody, whoever bids highest, and will murder anybody who gets in his way. CG-guy is going to insist on higher risk by relying on stealth, possibly lower rewards if he's offered stupid amounts to throw his cargo overboard.

CN-guy probably would also balk at the high-reward "throw cargo overboard" bribe from the government, just because he's going to be more likely to want to stick it to "the man."



But are there any other experiences with alignments that seem quite opposed working out that anyone has had or thought of?
My own favorite Necromancer to play is NE or TN with E tendencies, depending on who you ask. He loves partying with LG and CG types, because he can appeal to the LG's sense of ethics and the CG's sense of heroism to keep them from backstabbing him. He can trust them NOT to backstab him far more than he could people closer to his own alignment. His personal ethics are based on thoroughly-thought-out self-interest: he won't backstab or betray people, generally, because developing that level of trust keeps him safe. He's perfectly willing to commit atrocities for his goals, but he strives to do it as a last resort and to make sure he doesn't leave anybody around who could become his enemy over it if he does.

So he works very well with heroes. They tend to win, and the accolades and gratitude of the masses can win just as many resources and rewards as could terrorizing and stealing. And it earns fewer enemies. At least, fewer that would be likely to team up together. Evil just doesn't play nicely with itself, and he knows it.

[QuintonBeck]

Evil just doesn't play nicely with itself, and he knows it.

The big reason Redcloak and Daimyo wouldn't work together. Also, Miko is a bit of a low Wis zealot and those rarely get along with anyone, regardless of alignment.

Segev, I love villains who realize heroes are the best allies due to their silly honor and righteousness, the LE cleric I was discussing is kinda like that except he's trying to take the CG sorcerer under his wing and guide her to the dark side, Sith apprentice style.

With all this talk about smugglers I can't help but think of perhaps the most famous fictional smuggler, Han Solo. Just out of curiosity, how do you view his morality? I'd personally say CN to start then shifted to CG. Jabba I'd say is NE. Agree, disagree?

[Segev]

I'd honestly pin Jabba as LE. He may not have obeyed Empire law, but he was very much on the law and order as it served him side of things.

Han is CN at first, yeah. He wasn't a murderer and didn't cheat people deliberately, but wasn't above taking the expedient route when his own life and freedom were on the line. ("Han shot first" is still self defense when he pretty clearly knew Greedo and what Greedo was going to do to him. At least by a CN character's viewpoint.)

[QuintonBeck]

LE for Jabba? I mean, I know he was an organized crime boss and organized and Lawful go hand in hand, but he seemed more concerned with organizing things so that he benefited, ignoring laws when they didn't benefit him, and generally pushing his objective irreverent of his surroundings. Seems more NE to me than LE.

[Segev]

Perhaps. I admit to not being a huge fan of Star Wars, so I haven't paid enough attention to all that Jabba the Hutt did to be able to make a clear judgment.

[Red Fel]

LE for Jabba? I mean, I know he was an organized crime boss and organized and Lawful go hand in hand, but he seemed more concerned with organizing things so that he benefited, ignoring laws when they didn't benefit him, and generally pushing his objective irreverent of his surroundings. Seems more NE to me than LE.

The thing to remember is that "Lawful" doesn't always mean "obeys the law," or even "respects legitimate authority."

It may mean many things depending on the character. Organized crime kingpins typically have a Lawful bent - they demand respect, order, and obedience. They are men of their word, always honoring a promise and paying a debt.

In Jabba's case, I could see him being LE, based on his limited exposure in the movie. In his appearance in (the remake of) A New Hope, he demands repayment from Han for the monies paid to smuggle illicit goods. He doesn't kill Han outright - which he could do - he simply wants his money back. In The Empire Strikes Back, he is shown as fairly savage, but even Lawful characters can be brutal.

Back on the point, LE crime bosses are fairly famous for employing thugs and tools of varying alignments for their low-level work. A Kingpin could easily have his mooks hire mooks who in turn persuade even NG good guys to do things for them. The smart crime boss casts a web so wide that everyone gets caught in it.

Classic example, from a superhero RP I once ran: The crime boss becomes aware that someone in his ranks is selling drugs. He has a strict "no drugs" policy in his crime family, as he feels it to be a dishonorable form of crime. Rather than weed out the problem himself, he becomes aware that a local crime fighter has been hunting down drug dealers near local schools. When she starts sniffing around his facilities, he captures her, knocks her out, abducts her, then (after discerning her identity) permits her to escape. She gets home to find a dossier on her kitchen table about the crime boss' employees suspected of drug dealing, and where they can be found. She proceeds to bust up the drug ring for him, not because she likes the crime boss, but because saving the kids is more important to her.

LE crime bosses are a rather unique form of LE, is what I think I'm trying to say. (And I can see Jabba as LE.)