Stupid alignment clarification question...

[DarkKensai]

Ok, so I have a group of new players, and while deciding on classes and alignments I looked up some stuff online to clarify to them what the alignments were like. (Playing 3.5)

I ended up confusing myself, because one of my favorite fictional characters (batman) was listed under like 3 different websites as being lawful good. I have always thought of batman as chaotic good, or neutral good, seeing as he is a vigilante who often has the police chasing HIM.

Am I totally off base here or what? Anyone able to clarify this, since now I'm confused.

[hamishspence]

The Giant had some interesting things to say on how Lawfulness can, sometimes, be compatible with vigilantism:


In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis. Certainly none of the characters in OOTS have such a code except perhaps for Miko. And we all saw what a slippery slope that turned out to be.
And WoTC's guide to Law & Chaos is also helpful:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law (that) is unfair or capricious.
...
The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.
...
Any character might fear the consequences of breaking a local law, especially when the authorities rule with an iron hand. Very few characters, however, should make important decisions based solely on the legality of the choices. For a lawful good character such as a paladin, achieving goals in the right way -- that is, in a way that promotes the general welfare and doesn't unnecessarily imperil others -- is the most important consideration.

[DarkKensai]

Awesome, that cleared things up a bit, thanks!

[inexorabletruth]

Batman is a terrible example for alignments. Mostly because he's been written by so many authors with so many interpretations of the Batman.
http://alzrius.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/batman-alignment.jpg

One way I like to explain alignment to new players is to break the alignment down into two categories and go from there. This may help you as well. The first half has more to do with ethics and honor, while the second half has more to do with morality… specifically, your compunctions towards committing murder.

According to PHB, pg. 104:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

On the ethical axis, lawful people place a higher priority on a code of honor than chaotic people. Neutral people will honor their word, or follow the law, within reason, but have been known to cave if the challenges to following a rule or promise become too inconvenient. For instance, take your average modern day commuter:

Lawful: Poster child for the DMV. Wouldn't speed if his mother's life depended on it.
Neutral: Drives defensively and responsibly. Sometimes speeds when he's running late or when the rest of traffic is speeding, just to keep with the flow of traffic, cause… you know. It's safer. :smallwink:
Chaotic: Believes stop signs are suggestions on a good day, yield signs on a bad day. Never goes less than 10 miles an hour over on freeways. Gets kind of a thrill out of not getting caught.


The moral side of the spectrum has mostly to do with your feelings toward protecting or destroying innocent life… so murder.

PHB, pg. 104, again.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

This is kind of self explanatory. If you're good, you protect innocent life. If you're evil, you destroy it. The only tricky one is neutral. If you're neutral, you're like most of modern day mankind. The PHB, once again, says it best.


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commit- ment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

And that about sums it up. So… to prevent a text wall (too late I know) I'll just reiterate that to understand a moral alignment, break it down into two categories and you'll have your definition.

[Slipperychicken]

Guys like Batman and Rorschach expose the weaknesses in the dnd alignment system's ability to categorize people and behavior.

[AMFV]

Batman under which author? Frank Miller's Batman is very very different from Grant Morrison's Batman. Hell even ASBAR Batman is different from the Dark Knight Returns and those are both Miller. The character varies too much in different portrayals to be nailed down easily.

[hamishspence]

"Alignment is not a straitjacket" - If a character exhibits a variety of traits, the DM can assess the preponderance, and assign alignment based on that.


Batman under which author? Frank Miller's Batman is very very different from Grant Morrison's Batman. Hell even ASBAR Batman is different from the Dark Knight Returns and those are both Miller. The character varies too much in different portrayals to be nailed down easily.

Hence, you could probably specify which version ahead of time, before assessing.

[AMFV]

"Alignment is not a straitjacket" - If a character exhibits a variety of traits, the DM can assess the preponderance, and assign alignment based on that.



Hence, you could probably specify which version ahead of time, before assessing.

You would have to specify since they are so very different and would probably fall into different places on the alignment spectrum, also the overall moral tone of the world is different and that does affect D&D morality to some extent.

[Tragak]

I ended up confusing myself, because one of my favorite fictional characters (batman) was listed under like 3 different websites as being lawful good. I have always thought of batman as chaotic good, or neutral good, seeing as he is a vigilante who often has the police chasing HIM. Those are my favorite Batman stories too, but the stories about the "deputized ally of the Gotham PD, with membership in the international peacekeeping organization known as the Justice League, and who happens to wear a costume" are a lot more common than the "hunted vigilante" stories.

[AMFV]

Those are my favorite Batman stories too, but the stories about the "deputized ally of the Gotham PD, with membership in the international peacekeeping organization known as the Justice League, and who happens to wear a costume" are a lot more common than the "hunted vigilante" stories.

It's why you'd really have to specify which flavor of Batman, he even varies considerably in different interpretations by the same Author.

[lytokk]

I've always thought of Batman as more of a Lawful Neutral entity myself. I'm not as familiar as most of the rest of you are, but I've always felt, at least based on my experience with him, that he respects the legitimate authority of the Gotham PD, and doesn't work with them, just does part of their job for them. He's not judge jury and executioner, so he's not going to kill (again, my experience), so he's definitely not evil. He's willing to die to protect what he believe in, so I would put him as good except for a few sticking points I have with him being good. Using fear and intimidation to beat his opponents, and having detailed plans on how to defeat ALL of his allies. That for me has him solidly put into LN, a very close to LG, but still a solid LN.

Granted, my views based on my limited knowledge of batman, being mostly movies and the cartoons.

[Scow2]

He's a Lawful Good greyguard-type. While he breaks the law, it's because the law has failed to establish order. He fights for the greater law and order of Gotham City, stamping out the corruption and putting the fear of law and justice into the criminals who otherwise scoff at the inept and corrupt GCPD.

There is absolutely nothing Evil or Non-Good about using Fear and Intimidation to prevent Evil. And having plans to kill/defeat all his allies is a caution in case his allies go rogue.

He's Lawful Good in the sense that he takes the Good approach to creating a just and fair order.

[Sith_Happens]

He's a Lawful Good greyguard-type. While he breaks the law, it's because the law has failed to establish order. He fights for the greater law and order of Gotham City, stamping out the corruption and putting the fear of law and justice into the criminals who otherwise scoff at the inept and corrupt GCPD.

This is probably the best explanation of Batman-as-LG I've ever read.

[Jay R]

I ended up confusing myself, because one of my favorite fictional characters (batman) was listed under like 3 different websites as being lawful good. I have always thought of batman as chaotic good, or neutral good, seeing as he is a vigilante who often has the police chasing HIM.

Am I totally off base here or what? Anyone able to clarify this, since now I'm confused.

Don't try to understand D&D alignment by looking at any non-D&D sources. D&D alignment is not consistent with any established moral/ethical philosophy in the history of the world. Like the combat system, it's a grossly simplistic system, unrealistic in may ways, designed to simplify play.

[veti]

Don't try to understand D&D alignment by looking at any non-D&D sources. D&D alignment is not consistent with any established moral/ethical philosophy in the history of the world. Like the combat system, it's a grossly simplistic system, unrealistic in may ways, designed to simplify play.

I agree.

Sometimes it's fun to look at characters in other media and say "Typical Lawful Neutral", or whatever. But in most cases it'll be a pretty dubious fit.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the option of just dropping alignment completely. The game works perfectly well without it - Gary Gygax himself took to running it that way, in his later years. Think about it.