PDA

View Full Version : Chaotic good?



Awesome Girl
2007-01-26, 07:33 AM
Hi.
I don't really play D&D that much so can someone explain to me what chaotic good is? I don't think you can be chaotic and good at the same time.

Calsan
2007-01-26, 07:38 AM
Think of examples like Robin Hood.

It's all about freedom loving goodoers. Chaotic doesn't exactly mean total chaos.
It means a certain level of freedom and "common Sense" when defending good. Upholding the law isn't the first priorty (it's even totaly disregarded at times) Doing good and not caring about the laws.

Glyde
2007-01-26, 07:41 AM
Minsc is chaotic good. If they see any injustice, even if it's part of the law, they'll seek to correct it.

Snake-Aes
2007-01-26, 08:07 AM
chaotic means moral flexibility, quickness to adapt to different situations, prizing freedom, being reckless even.
lawful means self discipline, prizing traditions, being stubborn even.

chaotic neutral is, say, one of those rock stars that killed themselves with the wrong syringe, and it can very well be that child of yours that disrespects all of those family events... chaotic evil is... well, BELKAR is a godo example of chaotic evil. Utter lack of respect neither any kind of pattern.


Chaotic good...Haley and Elan are chaotic good, they care for people and don't really have any kind of tradition or discipline.


Just remember: Chaotic doesn't mean you're nuts, you're more likely to cross a bridge rather than jump off it.

I really like using monk-artist as examples of the extremes of the order-chaos axis ^^

Alfryd
2007-01-26, 08:10 AM
I don't think you can be chaotic and good at the same time.Being Chaotic and being Good will conflict on occasion, but they don't directly contradict eachother.
Chaotic characters tend to:
Be unpredictable.
Believe the ends will justify the means.
Resent unmerited authority and pointless tradition.

A white hat hacker who penetrates a major company's firewall, and takes no advantage of the compromise but leaves a message explaining how it was done and to correct the problem is Chaotic Good.

Alternatively, Starbuck from BSG is Chaotic Good. Well intentioned, mentally traumatised, unpredictable and bucks authority whenever she feels the authority figure deserves it even slightly.

[Scrubbed]

Finally, Angelina Jolie is Chaotic Good. Has a taste for... shall we say experiment... a rather wild past and near-total disregard for convention. Donates 1/3 of income to charity, which is less than she can afford but more than most can boast.

Snake-Aes
2007-01-26, 08:22 AM
"Orderly" is a better word than "Lawful" to describe what it really means.
as much as almost everyone interprets "lawful" as "follows the law", it's not how that works. It's more about prizing organization and traditions and self discipline than "It's the law, do it".
Lawful ANYTHING doesn't mean you'd follow a rule you don't agree with, you'd try to change it.
Chaotic ANYTHING doesn't mean you'd run away from rules, if you agree with any of them, why not just go on with it?

:durkon: "Being a dwarf has to do with doing what you must, even if it makes you miserable. SPECIALLY if it makes you miserable!"
Durkon is lawful :p

pendell
2007-01-26, 08:25 AM
My uninformed opinion ...

"Chaotic" means you don't really care about rules. You do what you believe is right, regardless of what the outside world believes.

"Good" means that, despite your disdain for rules, you still don't deliberately hurt people. You consider others better than yourself. This is different from evil, which will hurt or destroy the innocent to accomplish his goals, or even for his pleasure, or simply for the heck of it.

So "chaotic good" would mean a "rebel" character -- someone who's outside the system, but would still rescue a maiden in distress, give money to an orphanage, rescue a village from a dragon. It's just that, after the adventure is over, the hero would rather go back to his carefree life in the wild, rather than, e.g, marry the princess and settle down to live "happily ever after" in a kingdom.

*I* think chaotic good characters flourish best in frontier situations, like the mythical American Wild West. In such an environment where there IS no law, a chaotic good character can still live by his/her own code, doing good while avoiding the pantywaists who would, e.g., eliminate all the transfats from his food. It's when things get steady and civilized that the chaotic good character moves on to someplace more free and less stodgy.

Haley, in OOTS, is a classic example of Chaotic good. You'll notice that she does steal and doesn't pay much attention to The Rules ... but you'll notice that she steals as part of her adventuring duties from mad priests and orcs, not from ordinary people or dirt farmers. And she would rescue dirt farmers from ogres without any thought of reward. And we find out in the earlier strips that her motivation to acquire much loot is at least partially in order to ransom her father from prison. So even her not-nice actions have an unselfish basis, at least in part.

Another example is the crew of "Serenity" from the late TV series Firefly. They are outlaws and renegades who make a living doing illegal deeds ... yet somehow those illegal deeds always wind up helping out poor people and sticking it to the Alliance. You don't see them, e.g., butchering settlements from orbit, then coming down to loot the bodies.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Logic
2007-01-26, 08:31 AM
Normal human beings, even those of the Chaotic Alignments follow most of the laws, simply becuase most people don't seek to break the law.
A lawful person is more likely to attempt to get a law changed that he does not agree with within the system.
A chaotic person is not likely to follow a law he does not agree with (except for fear of punishment).

Setra
2007-01-26, 08:33 AM
A chaotic person is not likely to follow a law he does not agree with (except for fear of punishment).

This leads me to believe most humans are chaotic, though I think most humans are Chaotic Evil/Neutral, very few are actually "good" these days.

The Wanderer
2007-01-26, 10:21 PM
Here's an example of how it might work out using the old cliche of the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.

The lawful good character sees the man running from the police, and recognizes him as a beggar he's seen out in the street. He trips the man, sadly says something along the line of "I'm sorry, but you did break the law", and lets the police take him. The LG character might feel bad about it... but for many that it would be it, end of story. If he's a particularly compassionate LG character he might bring some money or food around to the man's family every now and then while the guy is in prison, and even try to get the guy a job when he gets out.

A chaotic good character in the same situation, recognizing the man and knowing that he has a family, shouts "He went that way!" to the cops and points in a different direction from where the guy actually went. The CG character might then walk away with a smirk and the thought **** the cops, don't they have anything better to do than to harass a poor man?. A particularly smart CG character, one who can think beyond the moment, might find the guy afterwards and tell him how a friend of his is looking for some extra help around his shop rather than having the beggar face the inevitability of being caught another day.

If the CG guy is unusually ethical as well as smart, he may even pay the baker who was robbed. At least, that's how I see their actions shaking out, although I'll admit I'm not the biggest D&D player or up on all its rules and such.

Querzis
2007-01-26, 11:42 PM
Here's an example of how it might work out using the old cliche of the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.

The lawful good character sees the man running from the police, and recognizes him as a beggar he's seen out in the street. He trips the man, sadly says something along the line of "I'm sorry, but you did break the law", and lets the police take him. The LG character might feel bad about it... but for many that it would be it, end of story. If he's a particularly compassionate LG character he might bring some money or food around to the man's family every now and then while the guy is in prison, and even try to get the guy a job when he gets out.

A chaotic good character in the same situation, recognizing the man and knowing that he has a family, shouts "He went that way!" to the cops and points in a different direction from where the guy actually went. The CG character might then walk away with a smirk and the thought **** the cops, don't they have anything better to do than to harass a poor man?. A particularly smart CG character, one who can think beyond the moment, might find the guy afterwards and tell him how a friend of his is looking for some extra help around his shop rather than having the beggar face the inevitability of being caught another day.

If the CG guy is unusually ethical as well as smart, he may even pay the baker who was robbed. At least, that's how I see their actions shaking out, although I'll admit I'm not the biggest D&D player or up on all its rules and such.

Thats the best description of lawfull good and chaotic good I ever heard as far as I'm concerned.

Justinian
2007-01-26, 11:45 PM
[Self Scrubbed, i.e. I quoted something that was scrubbed above, and the quote itself wasn't scrubbed - just trying to help, sorry about that]

[Scrubbed]

May I be the first to say thank goodness the Third Edition rules abandoned the concept of greed = evil always? Hayley appreciates it as well, I'm sure, but she's also chaotic and not above stealing to procure things.

If you don't believe in altruism at all, it's nearly impossible to be "good" as the 3.5 PHB, but that doesn't bother me *too* much, though I'm sure it would irritate an Objectivist.

At any rate, I'm not liking any of the assumptions being made here - as I rather like playing Lawful characters - nor am I liking that the alignment attempts to shoehorn anyone that believes as I do as a Chaotic Neutral.

Oh, and the majority of people in the world are lawful neutral.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-26, 11:50 PM
This leads me to believe most humans are chaotic, though I think most humans are Chaotic Evil/Neutral, very few are actually "good" these days.

I wouldn't say they're chaotic, I think a good number of us would rather work within the system than actively oppose it. And I don't a lot of us are evil, either. I say it's more around True Neutral than not.

TinSoldier
2007-01-26, 11:52 PM
Thats the best description of lawfull good and chaotic good I ever heard as far as I'm concerned.I disagree. I think he missed it entirely.

Alysar
2007-01-26, 11:55 PM
Just remember: Chaotic doesn't mean you're nuts, you're more likely to cross a bridge rather than jump off it.



Where have I ever heard that before? :smallbiggrin:

Justinian
2007-01-27, 12:12 AM
I disagree. I think he missed it entirely.

I concur. Let's say one is a Paladin, seeing a man running from the police. The first action, and why not, it being free and all, is to Detect Evil.
The next action is of course to get in his way and use Diplomacy to make him stop, while readying an action to do a subdual attack on him if he does not.
Either way, he's a L1 commoner. Then you find out what the situation is.

In THIS situation, he's stealing to feed his family, bread costs a pittance, you remedy the situation by paying the storekeeper and giving the man a lecture and suggesting other ways he might be able to earn coin to feed himself and his family. If there's some mitigating circumstance, you might see if you could solve it. Maybe you could see if you could find him some work at the local church, or with some NPC you know in town. You might see if there's anyway you can improve the local conditions, maybe help set up a church charity.

You don't just scream "I AM THE LAW" and throw him in jail. That's the Lawful Neutral response - that can make interesting character as well, see Vhailor from Planescape: Torment.

Now I suppose I could be sarcastic now and suggest that the chaotic good character would help the guy steal more bread and then some jewels cuz them evil rich folk didn't need 'em anyway, but I'm going to stop there. :smallwink:

mikeejimbo
2007-01-27, 12:33 AM
I concur. Let's say one is a Paladin, seeing a man running from the police. The first action, and why not, it being free and all, is to Detect Evil.
The next action is of course to get in his way and use Diplomacy to make him stop, while readying an action to do a subdual attack on him if he does not.
Either way, he's a L1 commoner. Then you find out what the situation is.

In THIS situation, he's stealing to feed his family, bread costs a pittance, you remedy the situation by paying the storekeeper and giving the man a lecture and suggesting other ways he might be able to earn coin to feed himself and his family. If there's some mitigating circumstance, you might see if you could solve it. Maybe you could see if you could find him some work at the local church, or with some NPC you know in town. You might see if there's anyway you can improve the local conditions, maybe help set up a church charity.

You don't just scream "I AM THE LAW" and throw him in jail. That's the Lawful Neutral response - that can make interesting character as well, see Vhailor from Planescape: Torment.

Now I suppose I could be sarcastic now and suggest that the chaotic good character would help the guy steal more bread and then some jewels cuz them evil rich folk didn't need 'em anyway, but I'm going to stop there. :smallwink:

I think that's a great explanation of what a Lawful Good character should do, not just a paladin. It's also a great example of what a Paladin should do.

Incidentally, I made a Lawful Neutral Paladin Variant, based loosely off the Paladin of Freedom, Tyranny and Slaughter Variants, sitting over in the homebrew section all alone.

And if all Paladins acted that way, they'd probably get less grief. Sadly, it's that 10% of them makes the other 90% look bad, eh?

Justinian
2007-01-27, 12:38 AM
I think that's a great explanation of what a Lawful Good character should do, not just a paladin. It's also a great example of what a Paladin should do.

Incidentally, I made a Lawful Neutral Paladin Variant, based loosely off the Paladin of Freedom, Tyranny and Slaughter Variants, sitting over in the homebrew section all alone.

And if all Paladins acted that way, they'd probably get less grief. Sadly, it's that 10% of them makes the other 90% look bad, eh?

Yeah. I love Paladins. Especially off-kilter paladins. The code isn't THAT rigid. Sooner or later I'm going to have to play that Paladin / Rogue concept I've been dying to try. After hearing that other guy tell me that all revolution is chaotic, I'm so tempted to make a rebellious Paladin.

Ever seen Kingdom of Heaven? "Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."

That's actually a little more rigid than the actual code, but who can't think that's awesome? Not only that, the heavily fictionalized Balian kind of exemplifies atonement towards Lawful Good.

TinSoldier
2007-01-27, 12:46 AM
Yeah, Justinian pretty much pegged what a Lawful Good character would actually do. Now we just need a Chaotic Good example to contrast with it.

Then again, any Good character would probably do the same thing. Neutral, Chaotic, or Lawful Good.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-27, 12:48 AM
Ever seen Kingdom of Heaven? "Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."

Sadly, I have not. But that does seem to be a good philosophy for paladins to follow.

Myself, I've always wanted to play a Judge Dredd like character, but my party is too unlawful for that.

Edit: Actually, I'm too unlawful for it.

Justinian
2007-01-27, 12:51 AM
Yeah, Justinian pretty much pegged what a Lawful Good character would actually do. Now we just need a Chaotic Good example to contrast with it.

Then again, any Good character would probably do the same thing. Neutral, Chaotic, or Lawful Good.

Well, I think The Wanderer wasn't that far off with his Chaotic Good example, he was just clearly biased towards Chaotic Good. Nothing wrong with that, a lot of people like playing it. It's frankly the most easy alignment to play by far - do what your conscience says, and where your conscience is silent, do whatever you want. Of course, that assumes the player themselves has a conscience and chooses to employ it while playing D&D, which is perhaps a generous assumption.


Sadly, I have not. But that does seem to be a good philosophy for paladins to follow.

Myself, I've always wanted to play a Judge Dredd like character, but my party is too unlawful for that.

Edit: Actually, I'm too unlawful for it.

You really should rent it, it is awesome. And that character I mentioned, Vhailor from P:Torment is very, very Judge Dredd. He was a lawman tracking a terrible villainous wizard, and that villain trapped him behind a pillar where he died, however, when your PC stumbles upon that location, the man has rotted away, and his full plate remains. When you approach it, the full plate animates, empowered with the living idea of Justice itself - on the planes, an idea itself can be power, and even in death, Vhailor must have retribution, he must have vengeance. He is very black and white, no redemption, no forgiveness, only retribution.

Seem crazy? Well maybe, but Planescape is kind of a crazy game since living as a Planewalker IS a crazy life. I can't in good conscience spoil the secret about that evil wizard, but you should play it if you haven't. Other party members include the lawful good cleric succubus, a floating skeleton head, a pyromaniac wizard perpetually on fire, and so on.

Darkuwa
2007-01-27, 01:17 AM
Law is not good Chaos is not evil (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2005-01-10)

TinSoldier
2007-01-27, 01:22 AM
Law is not good Chaos is not evil (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2005-01-10)Nice. I don't read that comic but I think that it sums certain aspects up quite nicely.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-01-27, 01:23 AM
I think the best example of Chaotic Good is Robin Hood. 'Nuff said.

The Wanderer
2007-01-27, 03:40 AM
Quickie note on my example above: I was trying to give a slightly more real life example than one you'd see in a campaign or anything. (Or if it were to happen in a campaign, something you'd more likely see from an NPC or minor character because of course we'd all know/find the best possible way to resolve things and have everyone be happy).

Also, for all that most people commonly hold up the law to the ideal that it exists for order, justice, and to protect society, there's also the other thing that is: the appliance of the power and viewpoints of those who are in power. It doesn't take a long look around our own world to see places where laws endorse horrific things, (everything from "honor" killings to segregation to slavery to religious/racial intolerance, etc). People/characters that are really, very strongly lawful good fanatics are a lot of times either to attached to tradition or the law to object to its abuses.

Of course, at least half to 75% of chaotic good are really just the acne covered kid in the back of the room with socialization problems talking about hwo he's going to bring The Man down. ;)

Algrim Wubble
2007-01-27, 03:48 AM
Yeah. I love Paladins. Especially off-kilter paladins. The code isn't THAT rigid. Sooner or later I'm going to have to play that Paladin / Rogue concept I've been dying to try. After hearing that other guy tell me that all revolution is chaotic, I'm so tempted to make a rebellious Paladin.



I had to ask a question of you Justinian. Are we referring to D&D paladins here mainly or other types? If were referring only (or mainly) to D&D paladins I have to disagree with you. Their code IS that rigid and more besides. Paladins can lose their paladinhood while dominated, charmed, insane or deluded. That's pretty rigid. Their overly strict code is what makes a D&D paladin a paladin. Otherwise they just a lawful good fighter.

Now only type of paladin (See Arthurian legends or the Song of Roland" arenlt quite so strict on their outlook and codes.

kerberos
2007-01-27, 05:08 AM
Fixed! ;)

[Scrubbed]
We never would have guessed. :smallbiggrin:

ibitak84
2007-01-27, 06:26 AM
Robin Hood works as an example for Chaotic Good, I have to agree. But your confusion is understandable.
In older versions of the D&D game, Lawful Good was considered the "best" alignment, with lawful evil (which is equally problematic to define as CG) and chaotic good being on the same middle ground. Look at Miko in the comic and you'll see why this is no longer the case really.
FDR isn't a good example of chaotic good, simply because real persons are to complex for the D&D alignment scale, where everyone is good/evil, chaotic/lawful, or neither in either respect.
To be honest, Robin Hood is also to complex of a character to be analyzed as such. After all, he way loyal to his king (Lionheart) the whole time. In fact, most characters in D&D games are to complex for just 9 alignments, too. In the end, the alignments are just there to make spells work (so a character can just target evil creatures with his magic fire attack or whatever he is using) and to provide an excuse for the good guys to commit mass-murder of evil minions.

Alfryd
2007-01-27, 07:07 AM
I'll reserve further commentary on Roosevelt for PM.

May I be the first to say thank goodness the Third Edition rules abandoned the concept of greed = evil always?
There's nothing wrong with the pursuit of wealth. What is wrong is the pursuit of wealth beyond the point where it meaningfully benefits you and/or at the significant expense of others. i.e, Greed.
There's nothing inherently wrong with selfish behaviour either- you're just as entitled to the benefits of local resources as anyone else, and can often service those needs more efficiently than any other party. What's wrong is the pursuit of personal benefit at a cost of greater overall disadvantage to the group.

If you don't believe in altruism at all, it's nearly impossible to be "good" as the 3.5 PHB, but that doesn't bother me *too* much, though I'm sure it would irritate an Objectivist.
That would be because Objectivists are Lawful Evil. Passively so, but LE nonetheless. Their one inhibition is not to inflict physical violence upon others- but a private sector monopoly on, say, water supplies in developing nations charging rates so extortionate they trigger starvation is A-OK.


Thats the best description of lawfull good and chaotic good I ever heard as far as I'm concerned.
It's not bad. But a LG character might not feel obliged to uphold every law in any country he ventures, particularly if it seems the laws are so oppressive that are a great many homeless beggars about.


Other party members include the lawful good cleric succubus...
She's LN, borderline on good. I thunk.

For those of us battlestar nerds, here is the complete alignment spectrum of BSG: (I think)


CG: Starbuck
NG: Boomer, Athena, Roslyn, Gaeta
LG: Adama, Apollo, Helo, Chief Tyrol
CN: Tom Zarek, De'anna Biers
TN: Gaius Baltar, Caprica 6
LN: Colonel Tigh
CE: Leoben Conoy
NE: Brother Cavil, Ellen Tigh
LE: Admiral Cain

Baltar and Zarek, in particular, are difficult to locate reliably. They are probably tendng toward CE in either case.

Alangriffith
2007-01-27, 07:55 AM
I concur. Let's say one is a Paladin, seeing a man running from the police. The first action, and why not, it being free and all, is to Detect Evil.

Detect evil is not a free action, its a standard action (the paladin description says its spell-like, page 180 of the PHb says spell-like abilities are standard actions)

If you just mean its 'free' as in it doesn't cost anything, it does cost you a round during which you can move 20ft (assuming standard-issue paladin plate) instead of 60ft. Or, to put it another way, you stand there casting detect evil while the commoner runs straight past you, and you are too heavily armoured to ever catch him again.

This pedantry brought to you by Alan Griffith - lord of pedantry

As to the real topic, alignment is ill-defined in D+D (at least in 3rd edition), so you will have vast numbers of differences of opinion. I actually like that aspect of it because your good character can do what you think is right (just make sure you get DM agreement), rather than what a list of annoying rules say.

When they have tried to define lawful and evil acts (such as in fiendish codex 2 with corrupt acts and acts of obsequience) it opens vast cans of worms. (by merely obeying a law you think is stupid 7 times, you become lawful. It doesn't say anything about doing so out of fear of punishment)

As to the main problem, don't ask us to define chaoticgood, ask the DM. In the DM's game, only the DM's definition really matters. (or avoid playing chaotic good, of course)

Justinian
2007-01-27, 11:33 AM
I'll reserve further commentary on Roosevelt for PM.

[Yes. Please do that. ~Roland. Scrubbed]


There's nothing wrong with the pursuit of wealth. What is wrong is the pursuit of wealth beyond the point where it meaningfully benefits you and/or at the significant expense of others. i.e, Greed.
There's nothing inherently wrong with selfish behaviour either- you're just as entitled to the benefits of local resources as anyone else, and can often service those needs more efficiently than any other party. What's wrong is the pursuit of personal benefit at a cost of greater overall disadvantage to
the group.I don't think there's anything wrong with Greed or selfish behavior - from a gameplay perspective and from a fairness perspective, you share all loot with your peers equally. You don't keep a potion on hand when it could save your buddy's life - but you also expect him to pay you back eventually, either with coin or that same potion, or taking the cost off a crafted item - so on. To me, that sort of mentality is not evil or good - merely self interested. Your other behavior determines the overall morality.

That's how I play characters, frankly, because I've played with far too many people that would exploit the available wealth, steal from the fellow gamers, hoard loot, etc.

Now, if you're a Paladin, you're kind of dedicated to self-sacrifice in the service of your god, and that's different, but I'm glad 3.5 dropped the whole you-must-tithe-a-huge-chunk-of-your-wealth thing.


That would be because Objectivists are Lawful Evil. Passively so, but LE nonetheless. Their one inhibition is not to inflict physical violence upon others- but a private sector monopoly on, say, water supplies in developing nations charging rates so extortionate they trigger starvation is A-OK.I don't think Objectivists are all Lawful Evil, though some are certainly so, and many of them don't believe in half the laws in the books, and many of them are very active in private charity - they just don't claim their actions to be altruistic, where as the world at large would. It's the philosophical quandary - does the act of feeling good from helping people negate the altruism? That first bit is pretty wrong as well - I believe in the principle of non-aggression, too, and it's not just "don't physically attack someone."

Of course, I do believe that insofar as terminology goes free trade > fair trade.


It's not bad. But a LG character might not feel obliged to uphold every law in any country he ventures, particularly if it seems the laws are so oppressive that are a great many homeless beggars about.
She's LN, borderline on good. I thunk.Falls-From-Grace?
http://www.gamebanshee.com/planescapetorment/companions/images/fall-from-gracestats.jpg
Well I'll be damned, that IS the symbol for neutral, and the border for lawful. Everything she says and does in the game comes off exceptionally lawful good.



For those of us battlestar nerds, here is the complete alignment spectrum of BSG: (I think)


CG: Starbuck
NG: Boomer, Athena, Roslyn, Gaeta
LG: Adama, Apollo, Helo, Chief Tyrol
CN: Tom Zarek, De'anna Biers
TN: Gaius Baltar, Caprica 6
LN: Colonel Tigh
CE: Leoben Conoy
NE: Brother Cavil, Ellen Tigh
LE: Admiral Cain

Baltar and Zarek, in particular, are difficult to locate reliably. They are probably tendng toward CE in either case.I'm a Battlestar Nerd too, and I can't particularly disagree with any of that per se. Baltar I'd probably push as Chaotic Neutral, but you said yourself that he's hard to locate. :smallsmile:


Detect evil is not a free action, its a standard action (the paladin description says its spell-like, page 180 of the PHb says spell-like abilities are standard actions)

If you just mean its 'free' as in it doesn't cost anything, it does cost you a round during which you can move 20ft (assuming standard-issue paladin plate) instead of 60ft. Or, to put it another way, you stand there casting detect evil while the commoner runs straight past you, and you are too heavily armoured to ever catch him again.

This pedantry brought to you by Alan Griffith - lord of pedantry

It's okay - I like pedantry and frequently engage in it, so nice catch! I frequently forget that, and so do my DMs it would seem.

At any rate, if the beggar were too close, i.e. would pass in the next round, then yes, you have no time to detect evil until after he's stopped.

Of course, now that we're in the mood for pedantry, I notice that Detect Evil is only 60', and a running beggar moves at 30'x4. Heck, a hustling beggar moves at 30'x2. So yeah, no time to detect evil, you have to just stop him first.

Doesn't change what you should do one bit - for all you know the guy just murdered someone.

Alfryd
2007-01-27, 12:25 PM
...but I'm glad 3.5 dropped the whole you-must-tithe-a-huge-chunk-of-your-wealth thing.
...eerm. Well, beyond a certain point where the objective benefits of purchasing a vorpal longsword+4 for umpteen thousand gold are less than than, say, building a hospital to relieve the suffering of scores of innocents, you'd kind of be guilty of passive evil. Of course, it is *conceivable* that by equipping oneself with weapons of fine workmanship one can drastically improve one's ability to smite evil and thus, theoretically, shield *more* innocents, but the logic is a litte more tenuous, and probably a tad chaotic.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Greed...
Greed is *defined* as the pursuit of wealth to point where it becomes harmful. The word you're looking for is... uh... acquisitiveness?

It's the philosophical quandary - does the act of feeling good from helping people negate the altruism?
That's the other problem I have with objectivism- you can rationalise any set of behaviours as a neccesary expression of one's nature and identity and thus, according to Rand's logic, 'selfish' behaviour. It's completely meaningless as a guide to action.

Of course, I do believe that insofar as terminology goes free trade > fair trade.
Yeah, the problem is that corporate monopolies can constrain effective freedom of market choice as easily as government meddling with supply and demand, and at least a couple of governments are theoretically accountable to their citizens.

Justinian
2007-01-27, 01:15 PM
...eerm. Well, beyond a certain point where the objective benefits of purchasing a vorpal longsword+4 for umpteen thousand gold are less than than, say, building a hospital to relieve the suffering of scores of innocents, you'd kind of be guilty of passive evil. Of course, it is *conceivable* that by equipping oneself with weapons of fine workmanship one can drastically improve one's ability to smite evil and thus, theoretically, shield *more* innocents, but the logic is a litte more tenuous, and probably a tad chaotic.

So of course, you do realize that if you took this to its logical conclusion, in acting as a DM, setting such an unfair standard would be harmful to your Paladin players... right? The wealth-by-level guidelines by which the game is balanced don't say "everyone except for Paladins." A Paladin should have the finest +whatever holy weapons and magical armor possible - you don't kill a Balor with charity or innate goodness, and yet, with the proper gear, a Paladin is the most dangerous martial class by far versus the strongest evil opponents, especially devils, demons, and dragons.

The only conceivably balanced way you could force the Paladin to donate huge chunks of gold would be if his order or the local authority were to give him magical items as rewards for dedicated service, equating him back to the proper level of gear quality.

They certainly shouldn't be robbing the donation box, but neither do they have to have lower quality gear than everyone else because of some arbitrary standard. If you DID set that rule, you'd have to buff the Paladin class to give them innate bonuses, something like the Diet Coke version of Vow of Poverty.

In the extreme short term, sure you could expect them to donate, but that doesn't mean the player should feel guilty for the gold value of his +4 holy longsword, and that doesn't mean he should be wearing studded leather while the fighter's in masterwork full plate because you rode by an orphanage.

Justinian
2007-01-27, 04:37 PM
I had to ask a question of you Justinian. Are we referring to D&D paladins here mainly or other types? If were referring only (or mainly) to D&D paladins I have to disagree with you. Their code IS that rigid and more besides. Paladins can lose their paladinhood while dominated, charmed, insane or deluded. That's pretty rigid. Their overly strict code is what makes a D&D paladin a paladin. Otherwise they just a lawful good fighter.

Now only type of paladin (See Arthurian legends or the Song of Roland" arenlt quite so strict on their outlook and codes.

If you look at WotC's boards, you'll find no topic to be more exhausted with incessant debate than that of Paladins and people's expectations of their behavior, most typically, "Hey guys, a Paladin in my game did this - should he fall?" And generally, the answer is "If you had to ask..."

The code is not nearly as rigid as people make it out to be, though. Sure, it limits your behavior fairly heavily, but you can still be play a good, honest person without being your standard issue upright lawful stupid pain-in-the-butt for your party.

The code is only this, and no more:
* Maintain lawful good alignment
* Never willingly do evil
* Respect legitimate authority
* Act with honor (do not lie, do not cheat, do not employ poison)
* Help the needy
* Punish the wicked

Anything else thrown in there at the DM's whim is a house rule. You can have all sorts of characters within those guidelines, albeit straight Paladin is so limited in terms of skills that multiclassing or prestige classing is typically the best way to branch out.

Here's an example.

The LG Paladin / Rogue is very playable, and quite a fun concept. People look at it with puzzled looks, but it's true. What are the rogue's class features? Sneak attack, trapfinding, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and a huge skill list. Are any of those skills or class features inherently dishonorable or evil? No. Not even sneak attack, bluff, or forgery.

Is it dishonorable to do more accurate attacks against an evil foe? Is it dishonorable to feint or create a diversion or deliver a secret message? Is it dishonorable to be able to detect a false document?

Indeed, the character could be a bounty hunter for the church, or act as "an undercover cop." You could be a holy thief-taker, so to speak, using the skillset of the wicked against them, perhaps from having lived a life full of crime before dedicating your life to a divine power, perhaps as special training to be employed in the pursuit of enforcing the law.

But that isn't to say the only off-kilter or eccentric Paladin requires multiclassing or prestige classing. A character class is not a straightjacket, a code of conduct does not define a personality. "Tell the truth and do no wrong" isn't that hard to do in a roleplaying game - no matter how hard it is to stick to in real life, though. :smallamused:

What I mean is this - you have to respect legitimate authority, but that doesn't mean you have to arrest the other PC's for trying to take down the evil BBEG king! As always, YMMV, and consult your DM, but seriously, let's not handcuff a character class so badly that breathing too heavy and too often will cause them to lose their powers.

You are right about the mind-control thing, though. Kinda stinks, but then, again, Atonement is free and readily granted if an evil act is "unwitting."

Alfryd
2007-01-27, 04:54 PM
So of course, you do realize that if you took this to its logical conclusion, in acting as a DM, setting such an unfair standard would be harmful to your Paladin players...
Game balance is irrelevant to the issue of whether this would actually be appropriate moral conduct. Goodness consists of making sacrifices for the benefit of others. What's he paladin's excuse? "Yeah, I'd like to serve the greater good in this instance, but that would be inconvenient."
As mentioned, a paladin could, in theory, justify reserving his/her gold in order to better equip him/herself for protecting innocents by smiting evil, which you mentioned is their speciality. Or maybe theyll simply suffer along with an attack bonus 1 point lower than their wealth-by-level guidelines would commend in exchange for healthy chunks of role-playing XP.

Never willingly do evil...
Actually, never DO evil. Accidentally, never mind under compulsion.

Is it dishonorable to feint or create a diversion or deliver a secret message?
If you Bluff, yes! It is explicitly a form of deceit.

Justinian
2007-01-27, 05:03 PM
Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#poison), and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment), a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) spell description), as appropriate.

While I'll grant you the text of the Atonement spell seems contradictory, all I did was reference the above quote. I suppose we could engage in semantics regarding the differences of willingly and unwittingly, but it would kind of be a waste of time, wouldn't you agree?

Also,feinting in combat is not dishonorable, nor is it lying. It's just good fencing. :smallwink:

Grey Watcher
2007-01-27, 05:04 PM
I think this is more of a generalized Gaming discussion. Off it goes!

Amiria
2007-01-27, 05:49 PM
I think the best example of Chaotic Good is Robin Hood. 'Nuff said.

Robin Hood is Lawful Good. He is a devout servant of the rightful king Richard Lionheart. Fighting the unjust laws of John Lackland doesn't make him chaotic.

Alfryd
2007-01-27, 06:10 PM
Fighting the unjust laws of John Lackland doesn't make him chaotic.
No, but using subterfuge, theft and deceit for the purpose would do so. It's been a while since I read up on the stories, but I seem to recall those are major elements. Whether this would outweigh his lawful qualities is a different matter.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-27, 11:02 PM
Another example is the crew of "Serenity" from the late TV series Firefly. They are outlaws and renegades who make a living doing illegal deeds ... yet somehow those illegal deeds always wind up helping out poor people and sticking it to the Alliance. You don't see them, e.g., butchering settlements from orbit, then coming down to loot the bodies.

Have to disagree with you there. Mal, for one, I see as the epitome of Lawful Neutral. Look at his conversation with Badger in "Serenity" (the pilot, not the movie): He still considers himself a soldier with honor fighting the Alliance. Just because he doesn't follow the laws doesn't mean he's not lawful: It merely means that he disagrees with the rulers. I suppose you could also make a case for Neutral, as well, due to his pragmatism. The only character on board the Serenity that I'd place under "Chaotic" without a second thought is Jayne, though there are a few others I'd have to think about some more. Also, I have no idea where I'd put River, but she's not exactly normal.


Robin Hood is Lawful Good. He is a devout servant of the rightful king Richard Lionheart. Fighting the unjust laws of John Lackland doesn't make him chaotic.

Yeah, that's what I've always figured. Rebels can be Lawful, too (or do they suddenly change alignment if they actually win?). In fact, I'd say organized rebellions pretty much have to be non-chaotic: Revolutionaries, on the other hand, are always Chaotic (maybe a few Lawful people, but the "organization" on the whole is a chaotic one).

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-27, 11:36 PM
It's gotten to the point now that every time I see a topic that's clearly about alignments, I step back and go "My god, what have you done?".

On the other hand, they're also kind of fun to read.

The Wanderer
2007-01-27, 11:44 PM
[QUOTE=Mewtarthio;1906820]Have to disagree with you there. Mal, for one, I see as the epitome of Lawful Neutral. Look at his conversation with Badger in "Serenity" (the pilot, not the movie): He still considers himself a soldier with honor fighting the Alliance. Just because he doesn't follow the laws doesn't mean he's not lawful: It merely means that he disagrees with the rulers./quote]

Mal seems to have a pretty big things against government of all sorts though. I seem to remember a quote of his saying something to effect of "All government is good for is getting in man's way". Also, saying that he has a sense of honor alone doesn't nearly qualify him as lawful in my book, since it seems to me that a chaotic good character has to have at least some sense of ethics and honor or he wouldn't be classified as good in the first place.

If that's still not an example you'd agree on though, what about Han Solo prior to joining up with Luke, Leia and the Rebellion? (And I mean of the old school, Han shot first version of Han).

Mewtarthio
2007-01-27, 11:59 PM
Mal seems to have a pretty big things against government of all sorts though. I seem to remember a quote of his saying something to effect of "All government is good for is getting in man's way". Also, saying that he has a sense of honor alone doesn't nearly qualify him as lawful in my book, since it seems to me that a chaotic good character has to have at least some sense of ethics and honor or he wouldn't be classified as good in the first place.

I'm not sure where the quote's from, but seeing as the only government in the 'verse at the time was the Alliance, I doubt he really meant that he was an anarchist. I'm don't think he had much of a problem with whatever government ruled him before the Alliance won.

Still, I will concede that Badger's comment may have been directed at the moral, rather than the ethical, axis (a non-evil character may be seen as self-righteous to an evil one, after all), but it does strongly imply at the very least an aversion to chaos. Of course, fitting the crew of Serenity into alignments is probably an exercise in futility: Let's just call 'em "any non-evil" and leave it at that.

Except Jayne. He's CE. That's why he's such a good character.


If that's still not an example you'd agree on though, what about Han Solo prior to joining up with Luke, Leia and the Rebellion? (And I mean of the old school, Han shot first version of Han).

Definitely Chaotic, most probably non-Good. I'd call him CN. After joining the Rebellion, he shifts towards CG (the defining moment is his decision to return to the Battle of Yavin; whatever moral conflict changed his mind from "take the money and run" to "go back and save the Rebellion" did it for him).

Wehrkind
2007-01-28, 12:03 AM
I kind of think that discussing philosophy is getting off the general purpose of this entire forum. Even if it is necessary to examine the question of the alignments in D&D.

For myself, suffice to say the alignments in D&D are based off the philosophy of altruism (which is not the only one out there, just the most common) and thus "good" and "evil" are going to be based on that.
Most of the debate included in this thread comes from people who drift towards other philosophical schools between altruism and Objectivism. Since settling on what constitutes good and evil between these folks would require a (very) rigorous debate of ethics and philosophy, it really can not and should not be "settled" here.

For the charming fellow who stated "Objectivists are LE" etc., I would reply that your understanding and definitions seem to be off, and I would ask that you refrain from such offensive remarks, as it is against forum policy for you to be properly rebutted in a philosophic discussion, to my understanding at least.

If not, start up a "philosophical problems with alignment in D&D" and let's go at it! :)

Talya
2007-01-28, 12:04 AM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

Law Vs. Chaos
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.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.
----
Chaotic Good, "Rebel"
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-28, 12:13 AM
The irony is, of course, the elves. They are listed as the epitome of CG, but they respect their ancient traditions over new ways and technologies that humans often go for. They also have little tolerance for any elves that do not conform to their society's norms. When it comes to elves that marry humans and have half-elven kids, the traditional elven response is "Get out and stay out."

Talya
2007-01-28, 12:49 AM
The irony is, of course, the elves. They are listed as the epitome of CG, but they respect their ancient traditions over new ways and technologies that humans often go for. They also have little tolerance for any elves that do not conform to their society's norms. When it comes to elves that marry humans and have half-elven kids, the traditional elven response is "Get out and stay out."

Depends on the elves in question. For certain subraces in certain campaign settings, that is certainly true.

TheOOB
2007-01-28, 12:57 AM
A Chaotic Good person is not neccesarly someone who fights the power and leads revolutions and such. A chaotic good person is just someone who does whatever they think is good at the time reguardless of laws, tradition, social morals, or common conceptions of good.

It should be noted that they only count as good if the things they think are good are acually good. The confederate states if america thought slavery was good, that doesn't mean it was.

Maglor_Grubb
2007-01-28, 02:31 AM
Hi.
I don't really play D&D that much so can someone explain to me what chaotic good is? I don't think you can be chaotic and good at the same time.

. . .

I think it is more unlikely to be lawful and good at the same time. (I am going to get some comments about this, but I like to state my opinion is the total opposite of yours)

A chaotic good person does what he thinks is right, no matter what the law says. He follows his own vision on right and wrong, and not that which society forced upon him.

I think slavery is a good example. Abolitionists were chaotic good. They did what they thought was right and needed to be done, and the fact that the law said otherwise did not mean anything. 'It shouldn't, the law has nothing to do with right and wrong, it often makes wrong right, simply by stating it to be. The law is for people who can't see what is right and wrong themselves', is the attitude of a chaotic good character. For more on this topic, see Henry Thoreau.

Often enough, a lawful person, in an argument with a chaotic person, states that 'you can't do that! There's a rule against it!', as if this fallacy gives it ultimate authority.

Let's let the chaotic good person have another word:
'I stand up for elderly people in the train or in busses, I donate to charity, I'd take great risks to help other people. Not because there is a law requiring me to do so, not because society expects me to do this, but because I think I should do this, because I see it as the good thing to do. When deciding what to do, I trust my moral compass and don't even think about what the rules say about this situation. I am often sad to see good people making decisions based on the rules of others, losing all contact with their moral compass and doing more harm then good. The law restricts people in their ability to do good. Laws can be made to uphold a good ideal, with a good intention, but they are only words - and the words are what is followed, not the intention behind it. In some cases the reason why a rule is created doesn't apply, is it not crazy then that the rule itself does apply? That it is left as a trap for innocent people, trying to lure them into losing sight on right and wrong and only looking at what the words (not even the intention) of some rule - created for a generic situation, not specific for this one, and because it has to cover so much situations, it does not fit any perfectly - say. The rule cannot know what is right and wrong in this unique situation. Just yesterday I had an arguement with one of those lawful people. I was harming no-one, not even violating the spirit of a rule, but he still insisted that I followed that rule - I asked him, but he could not explain to me why it was the right thing to do, nor why the action prohibited by the rule was in this case a bad thing - he could only stand there and repeat 'it's a rule, you go follow it'. I felt sorry for the guy, he seemed good in his hart, but apperently lost contact with this inner goodness and now could only think in words, rules and regulations. He could not decide what was good and evil for himself anymore, he could not act on what he felt was good and evil himself anymore, he had become a slave to the rules and this evil master had betrayed him, harmed his ability to do good. That is why I am opposed to rules, in the form of laws or social norms, and feel sad for anyone who tries to combine law with good, since it is a good brother, lost in the swamps of external rules. I want to destroy all rules and institutions that harm anyone's ability to do good.'

Jeez, that bugger is long-winded.

JaronK
2007-01-28, 05:25 AM
My general Law vs Chaos description is that Lawful characters follow a code of some kind which has a strong effect on their actions, whereas Chaotic characters are guided by goals.

Thus, a Lawful Good character might have a code which says "Never harm an innocent. Punish the wicked." and so on and so forth. This code could be a personal moral code, or a law of the land, or even just a tendancy to swear guiding oaths. Sometimes, this can get in the way of being good... the beggar stealing bread for his family is a good example.

A Chaotic Good character has, as an overall goal, the ideal of doing good and treating your fellow man right. They're not going to follow any specific code... instead, they judge the situation on the fly and do what seems right. This too might get in the way of being good... saving that beggar might seem right at the time, but if protecting theives leads to an overall increase in lawlessness and theivery in the area, there might be wider scale problems that an instictual approach to morality might not forsee.

JaronK

Stephen_E
2007-01-28, 06:12 AM
When discussing general alignment issues you should never involve Paladins.
Paladins have huge behaviour issue perculiar to them alone, of which many have little to do with actual alignment. One of the major problems is that people inevitably involve their code of conduct in the alignment issue, when they have only the vaguest connection.

Also I'd point out that per RAW PHB pg 104 "Law vs Chaos", feelings and behaviour towards authority is a large part of the Chaos/Law alignment. Discipline and self discipline, on the otherhand, isn't mentioned once.

So as a general suggestion statements that indicate you've completely lost what the DnD Chaos/Law alignment is (in all it's flawed glory) supposed to cover -
1) Law has nothing to do with authority.
2) Law is about self-discipline/discipline.
(these are just a few that I've bumped into lately, but there are plenty others. Many of them about Chaos is "x", with "x" ussually uncomplimentary to Chaos, which is how you get people like the original poster saying she? can't see how you can be both Chaotic and Good).

Please note this is about RAW. Everyone is entitled to come up with their own vision of the alignments, but unless you specify that you aren't talking about the DnD system, and specifying what your system is, any discussion is going to be pretty fruitless (even more than your general alignment discussion is).

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-01-28, 06:36 AM
My general Law vs Chaos description is that Lawful characters follow a code of some kind which has a strong effect on their actions, whereas Chaotic characters are guided by goals.



Sorry, but that doesn't really work. RAW - "Chaotic characters follow their consciences" sounds a awful lot like following a code to me. An internal code, but a code nevertheless. You might do better differentiating where the code comes from, and how they approach their code.

I can't really find anything in Chaos/Law referring to whether they are/aren't oreintated by goals having anything to do with it.

Of course DnD has the problem that the more they write about it the more contradictory they get. The Law/Order PHB section pg 104, has 6 paragraphs, and even then dances a bit close.

Stephen

Alfryd
2007-01-28, 08:30 AM
Have to disagree with you there. Mal, for one, I see as the epitome of Lawful Neutral.
Malcolm Reynolds is clearly Neutral Good. He doesn't object to using deceit and subterfuge when it's called for and can be more than a tad ruthless, but he has a distinct honour code within certain limits and frequently goes out of his way to help others at his own expense. Admitedly, in "The Train Job" he came very close to inflicting tremendous misery on hapless innocents, but the moment he found out about it he bent over backwards to right the situation.

The only character on board the Serenity that I'd place under "Chaotic" without a second thought is Jayne, though there are a few others I'd have to think about some more. Also, I have no idea where I'd put River, but she's not exactly normal.
Jayne Cobb is CN, 'nuf said. River Tam, mostly due to her insanity, is CG. Simon Tam and Shepherd Book are LG. Hoban Washbourne and Inara are probably TN. Zoey, maybe LN, NG, it depends on her motives for following Mal. Kayley is probably NG, but we haven't really seen her make a lot of independant decisions, so it's tough to tell.


It's gotten to the point now that every time I see a topic that's clearly about alignments, I step back and go "My god, what have you done?".
Eexcellent.


...and I would ask that you refrain from such offensive remarks, as it is against forum policy for you to be properly rebutted in a philosophic discussion, to my understanding at least.
Objectivism is neither a Religious nor Political movement, so actually it's all fair game, in as much as Epicureanism, Spinoza or Logical Positivism is fair game.
Listen, the basic tenets of Objectivism are that you should rationally pursue one's own self-interest without regard for or sacrifice toward the welfare of others. There are a few small ifs, ands, buts and provisos attached- enough together with the emphasis on ostensible logic to make it a Lawful philosophy- but monomaniacal selfishness is pretty well definitionally Evil under the D&D alignment system. By the above, I may state categorically that all true Objectivists are LE without significant fear of contradiction. It's just a matter of definition.
If you want to argue that monomaniacal selfishness will, paradoxically, maximise the material, spiritual and scientific wealth of humanity, then do so- but strictly speaking it would still be a LE society.


...resentment toward legitimate authority...
There's something of a distinction between 'legitimate' and 'merited', which Chaotic characters have difficulty seeing. A chaotic character usually happily bows to the will of someone that they know has good ideas and is competent in a command position.


If you wanted a simple definition, LAW is PREDICTABLE. CHAOS is UNPREDICTABLE. Like all simplifications, it's a falsification, but it's about as good a first approximation as you'll get.

Maglor_Grubb
2007-01-28, 08:37 AM
Sorry, but that doesn't really work. RAW - "Chaotic characters follow their consciences" sounds a awful lot like following a code to me. An internal code, but a code nevertheless. You might do better differentiating where the code comes from, and how they approach their code.

I can't really find anything in Chaos/Law referring to whether they are/aren't oreintated by goals having anything to do with it.

Of course DnD has the problem that the more they write about it the more contradictory they get. The Law/Order PHB section pg 104, has 6 paragraphs, and even then dances a bit close.

Stephen

Yes, exactly. Internal 'code' vs external 'code', where the external 'code' is anything from doing something 'because all the cool kids are doing it' to following religious commandments to the letter.

Maxymiuk
2007-01-28, 09:06 AM
Here we go again...

My take on the alignment debate is as follows:
1) "Law" actually means "Order." This divests the term of any connotations to judicial systems.
2) Order, Chaos, Good, and Evil, by D&D cosmology, are active forces governing the entire multiverse - even the gods are ruled by them to some degree.
3) This requires a semantic shift in thinking: a character's (not player's) actions don't determine his or her alignment. Rather, their alignment determines how they act.
4) Of those four aspects, Order and Chaos are the major, Good and Evil are the minor.
5) Order seeks the ultimate perfection, which would entail the cessation of time. Passage of time equals change, and the only way to change perfection is to make it non-perfect. Change, therefore, equals chaos. Chaos seeks the ultimate divergence, which would entails the cessation of life. Life implies structure, which is a thing of Order. Those two aspects balance each other out, since otherwise existence wouldn't be possible. However, each one always attempts to achieve dominance.
6) Since they by themselves cannot prevail over the other, they have to resort to independent agents. These agents range from individual creatures (an inevitable versus a chaos beast), to societies (dwarves versus elves), to concepts (civilization versus tribalism), to entire planes of existence (the Nine Hells versus the Abyss - what is the Blood War if not the war of Order and Chaos, so to say, personified?).
7) All the same, the inherent flaw in every such agent is that it needs both forces to be able to function. An inevitable wouldn't be able to do its job without being able to think (learning and adaptation is change, and therefore an aspect of Chaos), while the very concept of war as an expression of Chaos has been subverted by Order with the development of tactics, logistics, formations, etc. This flaw ensures that neither of those two forces can win, nor can it keep an advantage for long (relatively speaking).
8) The bottom line is that both Order and Chaos are necessary for the continued existence of... well, existence.
9) This brings us, at long last, to Good and Evil. While they are certainly significant forces, they are still fairly minor in the grand scheme of things - their existence, or lack thereof, would not gring the multiverse to a halt. They are simply another set of tools for Order and Chaos to use.
10) The whole morality argument arises from a lack of perspective. To the average inhabitant of the Material Plane Good and Evil are much more visible, be it the necromancer sending his undead against a city, or the troop of paladins who stop him. Meanwhile few, if any, notice the Order and Chaos whirring away in the background: the necromancer attempting Change by becoming ruler of the city and the paladins restoring Stability by defeating him.
11) Good and Evil also have their agents, but those often end up subverted by Law or Chaos. While doing good for Good's sake and evil for Evil's sake is possible, it rarely happens without altering the balance between Order and Chaos is some small way.
12. A lot of the confusion on this part may be attributed to the concept of Neutrality. Which isn't even a force in itself, yet is often treated like one. Rather, a Neutral being is either a creature who is not an agent of Order or Chaos, or an agent who is not affected by Good or Evil. Only a small difference in wording from "lacking commitment" or "feels no compulsion?" Yes, but an important one - recall that alignment affects demeanor, not the other way around.


So a quick practical breakdown of different alignemnts:
Lawful Good - seeks Stability through example. Advances the cause of Order by making it look attractive.
Lawful Neutral - seeks Stability through writ. Advances the cause of Order by impartiality.
Lawful Evil - seeks Stability through dominance. Advances the cause of Order by forcing it upon the world.
Chaotic Good - creates Change through example. Advances the cause of Chaos by making it look attractive.
Chaotic Neutral - creates Change through indifference. Advances the cause of Chaos by disruption.
Chaotic Evil - creates Change through destruction. Advances the cause of Chaos by actively eradicating Order and its agents.

Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, and True Neutral - nonagents, but their actions may easily be subverted to the benefit of Order or Chaos.

Alfryd
2007-01-28, 10:03 AM
This brings us, at long last, to Good and Evil. While they are certainly significant forces, they are still fairly minor in the grand scheme of things - their existence, or lack thereof, would not gring the multiverse to a halt. They are simply another set of tools for Order and Chaos to use.
Oh, on the contrary. The whole point to Good/Evil is that CG and LG can co-exist, because they recognise that harmony is more important than dominance. In a sense, Goodness consists of negotiating a Detente between Law and Chaos.
Besides, the Good/Evil axis is generally considered more important in the cosmic scheme of things than law/chaos- paladins, for example, can perform chaotic acts and associate with chaotic characters, but not evil.

This requires a semantic shift in thinking: a character's (not player's) actions don't determine his or her alignment. Rather, their alignment determines how they act.
No.
Without choice, there is no morality.

Maxymiuk
2007-01-28, 10:19 AM
Oh, on the contrary. The whole point to Good/Evil is that CG and LG can co-exist, because they recognise that harmony is more important than dominance.

Certainly they can, but that's because they're acting in a world limited by their own perspective. The CG ranger and LG paladin are not the forces of Order and Chaos: they're agents of those forces, affecting the world by their very existence. Also, by their very nature they are made of Chaos and given structure by Order. They're mostly unaware of the cosmic struggle they are part of, which explains why they aren't at each other's throats.


Besides, the Good/Evil axis is generally considered more important in the cosmic scheme of things than law/chaos- paladins, for example, can perform chaotic acts and associate with chaotic characters, but not evil.Perspective again. Note my necromancer versus paladins argument. Good and Evil may seem more important because their clash is much more visible (and, seemingly, comprehensible) to an average person. But Good and Evil are still agents of Order and Chaos.


No.
Without choice, there is no morality.Yes.

Maglor_Grubb
2007-01-28, 11:41 AM
I like Maximiux take on alignment, but it is not mine. I rather see the alignment axis is a simplistic way of describing personality. And while your personality dictates your actions (not the other way around, though you can get to know one's personality / a characters alignment by watching his actions), it is not a cosmic force, more than, say, archetypes or any other thing that is an important part (in D&D) of the personality of every sentient being, including the gods.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-28, 02:10 PM
I like Maximiux take on alignment, but it is not mine. I rather see the alignment axis is a simplistic way of describing personality. And while your personality dictates your actions (not the other way around, though you can get to know one's personality / a characters alignment by watching his actions), it is not a cosmic force, more than, say, archetypes or any other thing that is an important part (in D&D) of the personality of every sentient being, including the gods.

So, the fact that the Outer Planes divide themselves quite neatly along the moral and ethical axises is just a fluke?

Alfryd
2007-01-28, 02:21 PM
They're mostly unaware of the cosmic struggle they are part of, which explains why they aren't at each other's throats.
I beg to differ. I don't think that two strongly Good characters with a very thorough understanding of their respective Chaotic and Lawful alignments would be more inclined to slay eachother than two TN characters. Take Starbuck and Adama. Each recognises the particular strengths of the other and cooperate usefully to achieve their mutual goals through respect and understanding. And adama is fully aware of the whys and wherefores of his duties and starbuck is grudgingly aware that she's erratic and free-spirited. Each is a distinct advantage in different situations.
"That's why I want her input. With respect gentlemen, none of us are as crazy as she is."

Yes.
Therefore it is inaccurate to say that alignment determines actions. Actions- that is to say, the products of free choice- determine alignment. Not vice versa, which would make straying from one's alignment impossible.

Maxymiuk
2007-01-28, 02:43 PM
I beg to differ. I don't think that two strongly Good characters with a very thorough understanding of their respective Chaotic and Lawful alignments would be more inclined to slay eachother than two TN characters. Take Starbuck and Adama. Each recognises the particular strengths of the other and cooperate usefully to achieve their mutual goals through respect and understanding. And adama is fully aware of the whys and wherefores of his duties and starbuck is grudgingly aware that she's erratic and free-spirited. Each is a distinct advantage in different situations.
"That's why I want her input. With respect gentlemen, none of us are as crazy as she is."

Say we're good friends, but we're from different countries (not uncommon in this day and age). A war breaks out between our two countries. Does this mean that we will suddenly grab whatever's at hand and try to kill each other?
The forces that be may affect characters, but they can't control them, the way a politician cannot control what each and every one of the citizens under his rule will do - even though he might dearly want to. That's your element of choice right there.


Therefore it is inaccurate to say that alignment determines actions. Actions- that is to say, the products of free choice- determine alignment. Not vice versa, which would make straying from one's alignment impossible.I have responded "Yes" to the part of your quote that I've intentionally put in bold. Yes, there is no morality. Morality as we understand it cannot exist in the D&D universe because Good and Evil aren't subjective, and neither are Order and Chaos. They are forces that by necessity have to balance out, but also by the same necessity must constantly seek to overthrow one another. The multiverse is the direct result of this clash, and it is also a battleground in that struggle - a poker table at which the players can lay down their chips, to use a metaphor. Morality in D&D can certainly be a social or philosophical construct, with people living by moral precepts, discussing or arguing it (much as we're doing right now), or using it to their own ends, but once you look beyond that rather limited scope, you realize that what people may think or believe is largely irrelevant. Or rather, that their beliefs are a tool by which Order and Chaos act.

Orzel
2007-01-28, 03:17 PM
A lawful person is a person who is very willing to accept the laws and traditions of a person, organization, belief, or nature other than their own. Lawful persons will follow the law and traditions as long as they do not greatly offend or hinder them in some way. A lawful person will follow the no killing law, the no magic law, and the horse license law because the punishment for disobeying them out weigh the advantage of disobeying them.

A neutral person is a person who can accept the laws and traditions of a person, organization, belief, or nature other than their own. Neutral persons will follow the law and traditions as long as the advantage of obeying the law out weighs the advantage of disobedience. A neutral person might follow the no killing law, and the horse license law but not the no magic law since their shop can only function effectively via magic means.

A chaotic person is a person who might accept the laws and traditions of a person, organization, belief, or nature other than their own. Chaotic persons will follow the law and traditions as long as the advantage of obeying the law heavily outweighs the advantage of disobedience. A choatic person won't follow the no killing law since he can't care off robber out the threat of death, nor the horse license law since the he can easily pay the fine if caught, nor the no magic law since he loves being a wizard.


The Lawful-Choatic slide is a matter of willingness to deal with consequences. A monk must be lawful since the dedication to the art is required to train oneself. Anything less than full dedication will cause a loss of powers. A barbarian must be nonlawful since rage requires a release of emotion and thus the fear of consequences.

A LG person and a CG person can coexist as long as nol aw or traditions impacts one of them differntly than the other the the CG person is willing to break a rule that a LG will to stop the CG person.

Stephen_E
2007-01-28, 05:02 PM
I have responded "Yes" to the part of your quote that I've intentionally put in bold. Yes, there is no morality. Morality as we understand it cannot exist in the D&D universe because Good and Evil aren't subjective, and neither are Order and Chaos. They are forces that by necessity have to balance out, but also by the same necessity must constantly seek to overthrow one another. The multiverse is the direct result of this clash, and it is also a battleground in that struggle - a poker table at which the players can lay down their chips, to use a metaphor. Morality in D&D can certainly be a social or philosophical construct, with people living by moral precepts, discussing or arguing it (much as we're doing right now), or using it to their own ends, but once you look beyond that rather limited scope, you realize that what people may think or believe is largely irrelevant. Or rather, that their beliefs are a tool by which Order and Chaos act.

Actually Alignment, in particular Good/Evil, is almost purely subjective in core DnD (Ebberon has objective alignemnt). To be fair the core DnD society is medievial, which TTBOMK was also pretty much pure subjective morality/ethics. In DnD you have evil NPC races so that the heroes (who are susposed to be from the "good" races) have someone to beat on. People are evil because they worship the wrong side. The alignment system is still basically the original system from basic DnD, tarted up some over the last 30 years, whose framework is - The Heroes (good), the supporters and people needing rescues (goodish), the oppostion (bad). People been people, we quickly had players wanting to be evil, play NPC races ecetre, which has made appearance messy.

It all looks objective because it's you're standing in it looking out. and don't see that the entire foundation is subjective morality. Ebberon on the otherhand has a objective foundation with everyones subjective views built onto it. A ethical system built on a subjective foundation can't jandle the concept of subjective ethics becuase eventually it'll turn around and bite it's own tail (as you'll note much of these debates do) so instead it pretends that everything is objective.

Anytime you have "Evil" races, and "evil" subtypes you're looking at subjective morality. They're "Evil" because they got the "Evil" label stuck on them by the person who attaches labels.

Stephen

Mewtarthio
2007-01-28, 05:12 PM
Wait, what? You've got forces that are quite clearly Good and forces that are quite clearly Evil. Good and Evil are tangible phenomena. The battle of Good vs Evil is a fight that affects the multiverse. You can use spells to see if somebody is Good or Evil. Magic has different effects on the Good and the Evil. There are noticable differences between Good and Evil clerics. How is that in any way whatsoever subjective morality?

Stephen_E
2007-01-28, 05:19 PM
A monk must be lawful since the dedication to the art is required to train oneself. Anything less than full dedication will cause a loss of powers. A barbarian must be nonlawful since rage requires a release of emotion and thus the fear of consequences.



You were doing fine upto here. A monks must be lawful because back when the class was 1st made official and they decided what alignment restriction to attach (almost everyone had alignment restrictions in those days) the person choosing decided on Law. Whether it was based on their personal interpretation, or because they didn't have a "Law only" class I don't know, but trying to insert it in a alignment discussion is just going to muddy the waters and cause you to mess up your own arguments. The Barbarian is more recent, but I suspect the logic for choosing alignment was equally irrelevant to any alignment discussion.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-01-28, 05:32 PM
Wait, what? You've got forces that are quite clearly Good and forces that are quite clearly Evil. Good and Evil are tangible phenomena. The battle of Good vs Evil is a fight that affects the multiverse. You can use spells to see if somebody is Good or Evil. Magic has different effects on the Good and the Evil. There are noticable differences between Good and Evil clerics. How is that in any way whatsoever subjective morality?

Because it's all based on someone (the creator, otherwise known as the game designers, having stuck labels on them). If we take a 100 people and I go arond sticking labels on their foreheads identifying them as various alignments based on what I thought of them, how they looked, or simply because those were the labels I had left, then it's subjective. Just because they couldn't see me placing the labels, and act as if the labels are correct doesn't change the fact that my labeling was completly subjective.

Analogy - I choose an unstable peice of ground on a cliff edge to build a house. I then build the house useing normal sound building methods. Is the house sound or unsound. The answer is unsound because the foundation is unsound, and since I made no special action to compensate for the unsound foundation, it overides what was done afterwards.

Stephen

Maxymiuk
2007-01-28, 05:43 PM
Because it's all based on someone (the creator, otherwise known as the game designers, having stuck labels on them). If we take a 100 people and I go arond sticking labels on their foreheads identifying them as various alignments based on what I thought of them, how they looked, or simply because those were the labels I had left, then it's subjective. Just because they couldn't see me placing the labels, and act as if the labels are correct doesn't change the fact that my labeling was completly subjective.

And now all bets are off because you stepped out of the D&D world and into ours. Can you see the problem here?


Analogy - I choose an unstable peice of ground on a cliff edge to build a house. I then build the house useing normal sound building methods. Is the house sound or unsound. The answer is unsound because the foundation is unsound, and since I made no special action to compensate for the unsound foundation, it overides what was done afterwards.

I'll agree. The D&D system as a self-contained world is, by and large, internally consistent, or "sound." Once you try to apply real life concepts of morality and cosmology, it breaks down, since you've put it in a confusing and contradictory environment, or an "unsound" foundation.

So if we're going to discuss alignment, let's stick to D&D, shall we?

Mewtarthio
2007-01-28, 05:48 PM
Wait, so morality in a fictitious universe is subjective because the morality has been defined by the game designers? You can't get much more objective than DnD; is there any way you could actually design a universe with objective morality if apparently actively including angels and demons doesn't do the trick?

TheOOB
2007-01-28, 05:59 PM
D&D morality cannot be subjective with the way rules apply to it. If D&D morality was subjective you couldn't have spells that deal damage based on alignment, creatures with alignment subtypes that superceed their acual alignment, magic that changes your projected alignment. In D&D alignment isn't a bunch of philisophical musings, it is an acual visiable, quantifiable attribute that every creature possesses. The definitions for alignment are pretty simple. Good people help others, Evil people hurt others. Lawful people are stable and predictable, chaotic people free and unpredictable. Neutral people are somewhere in the middle ground, a true neutral person won't go out of his way to help you, but won't hurt you either, they prefer some stability in their life, but arn't opposed to change and spontinaty either.

A chaotic good person is one who helps others, and prefers freedom and spotinaity over stability and control. It's really that simple, no need to get philosophical about.

Alfryd
2007-01-28, 07:31 PM
Morality as we understand it cannot exist in the D&D universe because Good and Evil aren't subjective, and neither are Order and Chaos
They don't have to be in order for choice to exist. I don't consider them subjective in the real world either (I don't consider them fundamental in the same sense as the laws of physics, but that's not the same thing as subjective any more than chairs are subjective, despite being non-fundamental.)

The forces that be may affect characters, but they can't control them...
I'm sorry, this argument doesn't work even in D&D terms. Logically, by your arguments, Outsiders of pure Lawful Good and pure Chaotic Good would be at eachother's throats whenever they crossed paths. They do nothing of the sort. There is no celestial equivalent to the blood wars, let alone alliances between Archons and Lemures against the Balor. Good/Evil trump Law/Chaos when it comes to determining actions. How often do you see alliances of CG and CE versus LG and LE? Where, exactly, is the evidence for this position?

Or rather, that their beliefs are a tool by which Order and Chaos act.
How does one meaningfully distinguish this from people choosing their alignment through their own voluntary actions? What exactly is the observable difference to justify this rather convoluted hypothesis?

Anytime you have "Evil" races, and "evil" subtypes you're looking at subjective morality.
I quite agree. Evil by nature is a contradiction in terms, since whatever you do by basic instinct you don't do by choice.