PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Most "evil" good alignment.



Teapot Salty
2014-02-17, 12:40 AM
Hey guys. It's time for an opinion post. The basic question is: of the good alignments, which one is the most "evil." I get that none of them are truly, but which one is capable of doing the most heinous acts, or even terrible thoughts.

On one hand, lawful is terrible. They could watch the entire world get destroyed just because an authority told them to. They blindly follow laws, which can lead to more terrible things, and can bend them to their will. They can put nations at risk to fallow rules. Example:Party captures an assassin. Party wants to kill assassin because he will kill them if he lives. Paladin doesn't allow this because oh my oaths restrict it and I'll lose my powers. They are at worst restrictive and tyrannical, although at best they are kind and orderly. The means justify the ends.

I honestly can't think of anything wrong with neutral good except for maybe being pacifists (which Isn't even that bad, if that) maybe you guys can come up with a reason.
Just do genuinely nice things.

Chaotic can do terrible things. Oh ya I slaughtered an entire village of innocents to save the princess. Lieing, thieving, murdering can all be a means to the end. At worst they are brutal and murderous, but at best they are arguably the goodest of the good
The ends justify the means.

In my opinion lawful is the worst, the things I mentioned above are just terrible. At its very best, it is not as good as chaotic, and at its very worst, its worse then chaotic.

And as always, go nuts.

Scow2
2014-02-17, 12:44 AM
Lawful can result in letting a greater evil come to pass out of refusal to settle for a lesser evil (And getting chewed out because "While you didn't commit an Evil Act, the world is still dead")

Chaotic... can come across as more evil because it shuns responsibility and remorse - What happens, happens, and there's no use fretting about it any more.

Leviting
2014-02-17, 12:48 AM
well, chaotic good is generally associated with characters such as Robin Hood. Robin Hood was a THIEF. He STOLE things. Generally, theft is perceived as an evil act.
Of course, that is coming from a lawful good(with LN tendencies) person...

Tengu_temp
2014-02-17, 01:34 AM
The examples OP gave for chaotic and lawful characters are just bad roleplaying. Good-aligned people don't act that way.

I've seen too many people play CG as CN lite, the "I can do whatever I want and none of it counts as evil because I'm chaotic" alignment, but that's also bad roleplaying.

squiggit
2014-02-17, 01:38 AM
Both of those descriptions sound more "Outright evil" than "good but questionable

Worgwood
2014-02-17, 01:42 AM
None of them.

People acting within the grounds of their alignment are all still capable of doing bad things. But no one person is an ambassador for their alignment, nor is their alignment a stringent code of conduct. They're individuals. What makes someone good or evil isn't if they follow their gut or the rulebook, it's what they let slide on their watch, and both Lawful and Chaotic characters can do that... or not.

Mastikator
2014-02-17, 05:00 AM
Alignments are descriptions, not prescriptions.
Willingness to compromise isn't a matter of law vs chaos either. In D&D alignments the ends do not justify the means or vice versa, either they are just or they aren't. If you're very good then you'll seek the most good means that lead to the most good ends. And if you're clever enough you can probably find it.
(and murdering a whole village to save a princess is probably on the lawful evil side of the spectrum, since believing in social hierarchy is explicitly lawful and murder is Evil)

aberratio ictus
2014-02-17, 07:03 AM
The examples OP gave for chaotic and lawful characters are just bad roleplaying. Good-aligned people don't act that way.

I've seen too many people play CG as CN lite, the "I can do whatever I want and none of it counts as evil because I'm chaotic" alignment, but that's also bad roleplaying.

This.




(and murdering a whole village to save a princess is probably on the lawful evil side of the spectrum, since believing in social hierarchy is explicitly lawful and murder is Evil)

You could argue that, but I suppose that depends on the character. Murdering a whole village to save a princess could equally well be on the chaotic evil side of the spectrum, since being flexible about how to reach your goals and choosing the easiest path is explicitly chaotic and murder is Evil.

Just as easily, you could turn around the OP's example concerning lawful characters - Maybe the chaotic character won't let the party kill the assassin because he thinks he's merely misunderstood? Or maybe, incidentally, he has fallen in love with the assassin?

I've often seen chaotic good characters collaborate with demons from hell because they were charismatic and led them to believe they were simply misunderstood.

In essence - none of the good alignments is more evil than the others, and all of them can be equally misguided in their own way.

Mastikator
2014-02-17, 08:32 AM
A chaotic good character is more likely to abandon the goal of saving a princess than murdering a whole village for the sake of saving a princess.
Only an evil character could stomach killing a whole village.

Socksy
2014-02-17, 08:41 AM
well, chaotic good is generally associated with characters such as Robin Hood. Robin Hood was a THIEF. He STOLE things. Generally, theft is perceived as an evil act.
Of course, that is coming from a lawful good(with LN tendencies) person...

Theft isn't always evil, right? I'd say Lawful is worse, because had he been lawful, he would have sat around and let the poor people starve because he was unwilling to steal. Although I reckon a full on rebellion and uprising would have been so much cooler than the original story.

Of course, considering respective alignments, it would only be natural that you defend LG whereas I have the opposite view... :smallcool:

Wardog
2014-02-17, 09:04 AM
If you are Chaotic, you will probably think LG is the least "good" Good, and the most likely to let the other axis of their alignment interfere with doing Good, or lead to making Evil decisions. And a Lawful character will think the reverse.

The neither LG or CG is "Evil" in the alignment sense of the terms by definition, and you would have to be a pretty extreme-aligned character (probably LN or CN) to think the opposite was "evil" in the more general sense.

The examples in the OP are particularly bad.

Someone who would "watch the entire world get destroyed just because an authority told them to" is not LG. That's LN or LE at best, and mainly just Lawful Stupid.

"Blindly following laws" is also not LG. It's LN at best, and LE if they are routinely or uncaringly going "terrible things".

And refusing to kill an assassin even though he will probably kill you if you don't isn't evil, its just foolish. And depending on your reasons for (not) doing so, could be CG just as easily as LG.

As for Chaos - slaughtering a village of innocents is evil, full stop. If someone does that just because they feel like it, or because they can't be bothered thinking of a more sensible solution they are probably CE, but there are plenty of reasons and justifications why a LE or NE character might do the same thing. But either way, someone who does that is Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Good.



I would suggest that LE is probably worse than CE simply because it is better organized and more likely to achieve its goals, and so more dangerous - at least in real life. Although in a world with CE gods and demons, who potentially have the means and motivation to destroy the whole world, they might be more dangerous instead.

And by the same argument, I suppose LG is potentially more dangerous than CG, because if they have some plan to make life better for everyone and it goes wrong, they will affect more people than CG would. But at the same time, they can potentially do more good as well.

So to repeat- whichever (CG or LG) you think is best (or most dangerous) will depend on your own alignment. But the examples in the OP are not examples of the problems with CG or LG behaviour.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-17, 09:09 AM
So to repeat- whichever (CG or LG) you think is best (or most dangerous) will depend on your own alignment. But the examples in the OP are not examples of the problems with CG or LG behaviour.

Very well said. Have a cookie.

Segev
2014-02-17, 09:25 AM
LG, NG, and CG are all good. There is no "evil" act that falls within their purviews (though, of course, nobody is perfect and so all of them likely have some bad things they have done and will do again). However, I tend to think of LG and CG as being both equally-less-good than NG, because they concern themselves with considerations other than "what is the most good I can possibly do?"

NG is neutral wrt law and chaos because it understands that laws are necessary to codify ways to behave and to constrain the acts of those entrusted with power to preserve the well-being of all. That is, laws exist so that those entrusted with the collective power of the community (in the form of taxes to pay and/or authority over the constabulary and the monopoly on legal use of aggressive force) cannot simply apply their whims to the people. Laws dictate what that force can be used to punish or prevent, and how those accused but not yet convicted must be treated.

NG also recognizes that laws are imperfect, and there will always be corner cases and exceptions. Laws can be twisted by the clever to do things they never were meant to do, and even written by the evil to empower and enrich themselves at the expense of others. While it's always preferable to work within a legal framework, it is not so preferable as to be an ethical quandary when a neutral good character sees laws being used to harm the innocent or pervert true justice. The NG guy will reject the law being applied in such circumstances.

The LG guy will not make such a rejection, not easily. He's still GOOD, so he'll interpret and enforce the law within its letter in the most benign way possible, and a clever LG man is as able to find loopholes and tricks within the law as is an LE one; he just does so to counter-"gotcha" those LE types who try to hide behind the law. But if the law ties his hands, an LG guy will find himself struggling to worm his way into a loophole (or out of whatever one the villain put into effect) to do what is right, and, just as he might allow some evil to happen in the name of upholding the law, he might allow some lawbreaking to happen in the name of upholding the good. He won't be happy about it, and he might do it in a "knowingly turning a blind eye" sort of way rather than actually aiding and abetting, but he'll do it. At the same time, it requires much greater good or evil to push him to ignore the Law.

The CG guy will also still recognize that some laws are helpful; they spell out, if applied lightly, how people can treat each other and avoid misunderstandings. But of course, the CG person is not Lawful or even Neutral on the ethical scale, so has no respect for laws that fail to do good. He sees exceptions to the law as more common than not, and views it as guidelines where the NG person might view it as important to follow.

But the CG person is not more good than the NG person! The NG person will disregard the law immediately when it causes evil to occur, and find another solution. The CG person is more likely to ignore the law even when it could be used to do good; he's there, and it's more expedient to take matters into his own hands, even if his way is illegal.

This also means that the CG man is going to take matters into his own hands and into his own judgment even without, necessarily, following all the due process stuff that is typically portrayed as tying LG types' hands. Even the NG will follow due process stuff; he recognizes that it's there to make sure that the truly guilty are gotten, and not innocents framed by man or circumstance. The CG guy values making sure what is "right" is done by his own judgment that he'll trust his judgment and risk making a mistake.

If any "good" alignment might make the mistake of falling for the "ticking time bomb" scenario in the Good vs. Evil thread in the 3.5 forum, it's CG. Because he won't let petty things like ethics get in his way. (He still very well might not fall for it; murder is evil and he knows it. But he's the most likely to make the "greater good" argument when it comes to his PERSONAL actions.)

Therefore, NG is the "most good" alignment of the three, because it prioritizes good above all else, and follows the law all the way to the point that the law CAUSES evil, then throws it over without a second thought to do what's RIGHT. While the LG will follow it even if it means allowing some evil to happen (lest violating it over this peccadillo cause more strife in the future as the system breaks down under the personal judgments of too many), and the CG will ignore the law the moment it looks like it might even risk allowing evil to occur (risking being the CAUSE of harm to an innocent or overturning the underpinnings of civilization that keep people working together), the NG will instead respect the law insofar as it promotes good, and reject it where it does not. He might seem to have his hands tied by the former or risk overturning respect for the law with the latter, but in the end, his goal is good overall. He uses the law to guide him and keep him from making a mistake, but won't let it get in his way.

The_Werebear
2014-02-17, 09:45 AM
Both have dangers on a micro level.

From what I have seen, Lawful might be prone to stringent self rules that interfere with their ability to do good (not bushwhacking the evil Duke because it's not honorable, even if he'd lose in straight combat; accepting and trusting truces from evil creatures that he knows will break them; letting small evils slide because of a greater plan, or conversely, bringing a greater plan to a halt because he can't stand a small evil in it.)

Neutral is prone to trying to help those who will not be helped or can not be helped (trying to convert a fiend who rejects all forms of compassion/conversion, and has for about the third time).

Chaotic is prone to trusting their gut overmuch, which can lead to (depending on their sense motive,) trusting the wrong people, mistrusting the wrong people, or skipping out on doing the right thing "because they didn't like" some aspect of it. They're also more prone than lawful to taking potentially disastrous shortcuts ("that part of the binding ritual hardly seemed necessary, and we were in a hurry")

These are, of course, broad generalizations based on how I've seen the alignments played.

Joe the Rat
2014-02-17, 09:49 AM
So to repeat- whichever (CG or LG) you think is best (or most dangerous) will depend on your own alignment. But the examples in the OP are not examples of the problems with CG or LG behaviour.

There you go.

Now, if we're talking players, the answer is Lawful Good. Denied Evil or Chaotic Neutral, the jackass player will be a Paladin.

Vitruviansquid
2014-02-17, 10:10 AM
If I HAD to give a straight answer to this question... Let's see... Lawful Good is more likely to be compromised than Chaotic Good.

The Lawful Good character serves two masters - the Law and the Good. The Law part, whether it's a monarch, a military superior, a vote by the populace, or whatever, can tell the Lawful Good character to compromise on the Good side sometimes. Perhaps the Lawful Good character will listen to the Law or perhaps he will listen to the good.

To me, Chaotic represents a feeling of not giving two ****s about others' opinions and thoughts and prescriptions. The Chaotic Good character serves only one master, Good. Chaos isn't going to tell him what to do. The Chaotic Good character might come across as anti-social or unlikeable, but that's only because society wants him to compromise on goodness in the first place.

I figure 4e had its alignment system about right, with its spectrum of Good, Lawful Good, Unaligned, Chaotic Evil, and Evil.

Hopeless
2014-02-17, 10:21 AM
The DM is usually the answer to that in the games I played in, quite literally.

Ran a LN Cleric who faced a foe who deliberately led an uprising after his master an assassin was slain in battle and when confronted my character mentioned he might have accepted his surrender had he chosen to before starting this uprising and he promptly claimed my character had agreed to insure his safety so he could have a fair trial... talk about outright lying!

When that dm ran a paladin in a game he made a deal with a captured bandit who pleaded for the safety of his family and when we got inside the bandit lair he immediately stabbed the bandit in the back for absolutely no reason other than he believed paladins gave no quarter to foes whether captive or not...

That was a greyhawk game run by another player, as far as he was concerned he thought his character had the right as a noble to declare whatever he wanted done ignoring everybody else in the process... he was brought up short after the first game when he tried to ride off with the villain as his prisoner, but I was wondering if that qualified for this thread point of discussion is there anything more evil than a Paladin whose Lawful but anything but Good aligned?

Red Fel
2014-02-17, 11:00 AM
While I don't think there's a most "Evil" Good alignment, I think there can be a least Evil Good alignment - Neutral Good.

Neutral Good isn't concerned with personal freedom or expression, or with laws or traditions or honor or order. It's concerned with Good. Just Good.

Any player can play CG or LG with emphasis on the C or L, and de-emphasis to the point of alignment abuse on the G. Any player (who wants to fall) can play a merciless Paladin, or a Robin Hood who revels just a bit too much in his acts of thievery and anarchy.

But in my mind it's extraordinarily difficult to play NG as Evil. I suppose you could play the "greater good" card, which can be Evil for anyone, but I find it hard to do it any other way. With CG or LG, you have another alignment prong that can justify bending the G; you can be more Lawful or Chaotic than Good and still technically be Good. You can't be more Neutral than Good without ceasing to be Good. I just can't wrap my brain around it.

The only exception to this I can consider is some of the truly scary stuff that came out of BoED, like the Emissary of Barachiel, although a lot of that stuff is more LG than just-G.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-17, 11:10 AM
If I HAD to give a straight answer to this question... Let's see... Lawful Good is more likely to be compromised than Chaotic Good.


Now see, that's just like, your chaotic opinion, man. :smallwink:

Just as easily, you could argue that the CG Character serves two masters. Good, and his own whims, aka Chaos. Maybe he should bring that evil sorceress to justice, but damn, she's just too attractive, and our character is a lady-killer (not literally). Maybe he's just naive, and lets himself be persuaded with a hastily invented sob-story.

There are ways to compromise both of them, and it is up to the character, whether it works or not.

Joe says, in his experience, if we take in account players, it would be LG.
In my experience, it would definitely be CG, but then again, I realise that's because of the people I play with.

Jay R
2014-02-17, 11:17 AM
I know that the books disagree with me, but if I were playing Robin Hood, he'd be Lawful Good.

King Richard, his sovereign, is being held for ransom. The king's brother, Prince John, is beggaring the countryside with taxes and not paying the ransom. True loyalty to the law requires me to support my sovereign and oppose the evil regent. Richard's laws are the true laws, and Prince John and his minions are committing treason against him by collecting this money and not using it for the ransom, and by leaving Richard's subjects to starve.

Robin Hood does not steal generally - he steals only from tax collectors who are collecting taxes passed against the will of the king, and in ways that harm the king.

As I said, I know that the books disagree with me, but it is perfectly reasonable for a Lawful Good man to act as Robin Hood does.

And that makes it a perfect example to show why questions like the one in front of us are unanswerable. Alignment affects action, but doesn't determine it.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-17, 11:34 AM
Now, if we're talking players, the answer is Lawful Good. Denied Evil or Chaotic Neutral, the jackass player will be a Paladin.

Depends on the kind of jackass. Once again, I saw too many badly played CG characters. The most notable example is a kleptomaniac rogue who steals anything from anyone, even when the character is already stinking rich. Then you have people who think The Man is evil and who will spread anarchy and purposely go against any and all authority because they're rebellious teenagers, and selfish, violent jerks who will break an NPC's arm for talking them off and think they're being cool and edgy.

CG is the favorite alignment of people who think it's still the nineties.

Janus
2014-02-17, 12:05 PM
Speaking as someone who plays paladins a lot, I have to say that if your good alignment is making you do "evil" things, you're doing it wrong.

jedipotter
2014-02-17, 02:52 PM
Hey guys. It's time for an opinion post. The basic question is: of the good alignments, which one is the most "evil." I get that none of them are truly, but which one is capable of doing the most heinous acts, or even terrible thoughts.


All of them. It is the endless circle. If good goes to far it is evil, and if evil goes to far it is good.

Good people will often tell people what to do for the good of all. But too far makes everyone a slave. Evil people often don't care about people and give them freedom as they don't care. But too much freedom allows people to do anything they wish, even good things.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-17, 06:50 PM
All of them. It is the endless circle. If good goes to far it is evil, and if evil goes to far it is good.

Good people will often tell people what to do for the good of all. But too far makes everyone a slave. Evil people often don't care about people and give them freedom as they don't care. But too much freedom allows people to do anything they wish, even good things.

That's... not how any of these things work. At all.

Good that gets too good doesn't become evil, evil that gets too evil doesn't become good. They become really damn good and really damn evil, respectively.

Telling people what to do is lawful. Letting them do what they want is chaotic. This has nothing to do with good and evil.

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-17, 07:02 PM
Speaking as someone who plays paladins a lot, I have to say that if your good alignment is making you do "evil" things, you're doing it wrong.

I blame the popularity of the anti-hero.

Worgwood
2014-02-17, 07:12 PM
Someone can think the work they're doing is for the greater good, even if by our standards they're morally evil. Some of the worst things that have happened in our history can be attributed to that sort of thinking. Even selfish people might not necessarily think of themselves as "evil".

But someone whose alignment, which in D&D is a real cosmological force, is "good" doesn't do evil things for the greater good - and if they do it's because they slipped up or because they were left no other choice. They are still human and they can still slip up.

You can become evil because you were trying too hard to be good, but you can't become evil because you were doing too much good.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-17, 07:13 PM
Someone can think the work they're doing is for the greater good, even if by our standards they're morally evil. Some of the worst things that have happened in our history can be attributed to that sort of thinking. Even selfish people might not necessarily think of themselves as "evil".

Very few people consider themself evil. Everyone is the hero in their own eyes.

However, just because you see yourself as good doesn't mean you actually are good.

Worgwood
2014-02-17, 07:26 PM
Very few people consider themself evil. Everyone is the hero in their own eyes.

However, just because you see yourself as good doesn't mean you actually are good.
Exactly - there's a difference between someone who believes they are doing good and someone who actually is good.

That's kind of why this question doesn't work. If you're asking whether it's Chaotic Good or Lawful Good is capable of doing "more evil" then really, neither is really Good.

Ravian
2014-02-17, 07:29 PM
I remember reading a passage on alignments in Eberron (where things are often very grey) that seemed to base it in an interesting fashion that completely allowed for evil acts to be undertaken by good people (and vice versa). As an example they gave two NPC rulers, the NG queen of one nation and the LE king of another. Both nations were in a state of cold war following the ceasefire of a centuries long conflict. (which resulted in widespread death famine and the magical destruction of an entire nation)

The NG queen was entirely willing to restart the war once she had assurances that such a thing wouldn't destroy her nation as well. She knew full well that the war would be costly in lives, but believes that it is her right to hold the throne of the five nations and that things will honestly be better under her rule. She's against unnecessarily cruel measures but realizes that lives are the cost of war.

The LE king on the other hand is the biggest supporter of continuing peace between the nations. He does this entirely out of selfishness, knowing that war will allow a third party (also evil, but hostile towards him) to gain more power within his nation and is currently focussed on removing them. It's not a nice peace though, since he holds his nation and it's people in a state of martial law and uses necromancy to maintain a force of undead soldiers as a standing army. He's a tyrant, but it's hard to argue that he's not accomplishing good things in the end (keeping the nations out of war and removing a dangerous cult from his lands).

Basically it argues that Evil is more synonymous with selfishness, while good is more altruistic. A goal that while likely result in deaths and other atrocities done for altruistic purposes is still often done by Good people. And evil people will often accomplish good while following their own selfish goals.

Many of these examples come up, even Paladins in Eberron (who still follow a code and must maintain a lawful good alignment) have participated in the slaughter of lycanthropes (which included a number of innocent shifters that were caught in the mess) because they believed that more good would come from the end of the lycanthropy plague even if mistakes were made and collateral damage was sustained.

Segev
2014-02-17, 07:34 PM
Eh... if the evil king is using the peace to spread misery and suffering to his people, and they would gladly rise up in rebellion if they had a prayer of support from the NG queen, then I wouldn't say the NG queen starting a war is evil.

War is terrible. It should always be the last resort. But there are good reasons to go to it that do not involve being evil or selfish. It does require that you be willing to allow innocents to suffer...but the truth is, if you're going to war, it's because innocents are already suffering, and you're just changing how the bad guys distribute said suffering while you bring them to heel.

This is why, however, if one must go to war, one does so as swiftly and brutally as possible, to make the cuts swift, deep, and clean, and more easily heal the metaphorical wounds done by ensuring that all of the infected flesh is cut out. Half-measure wars are the worst sort of evil because they inflict the suffering of war with no promise of surcease.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-17, 07:35 PM
Very few people consider themself evil. Everyone is the hero in their own eyes.

However, just because you see yourself as good doesn't mean you actually are good.

As someone who has some experience with violent crime (processing, not committing) I'd say that's a common misconception.

Most simply don't care about concepts like good or evil, ethics or morals, being a hero or not, and they wouldn't put themselves in any of those categories.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-17, 08:15 PM
Not caring still means you don't see yourself as evil. "I'm a normal guy down on his luck, I do what I have to to survive" and all that.

Red Fel
2014-02-17, 08:26 PM
Not caring still means you don't see yourself as evil. "I'm a normal guy down on his luck, I do what I have to to survive" and all that.

But it also means you don't see yourself as Good.

Not everyone wakes up and thinks, "I'm going to save the world today!" Not everyone sees himself as the main character in the story of his life. Not everyone even pays attention to the story.

Not everyone bothers to justify his actions, let alone aggrandize them.

I will agree, however, that very few people are capable of seeing their own actions as Evil. They may recognize that others will see their actions as Evil, but most people find some way to rationalize what they do as at least "necessary," if not "Good." Most people can't truly accept their actions as so wrongful as to be Evil; otherwise they couldn't rationalize performing them.

Tiki Snakes
2014-02-17, 08:27 PM
I forget the specifics, but if I recall correctly, there is a pretty comprehensive argument that alignment in D&D works off of objective standards, unlike the subjective nature of real-life morality.

Which is to say, I recall it being quite possible to have an act be technically fully and officially Good aligned, but also horrifyingly immoral on an ethical basis.

But it's been so long since that particular discussion, that I can't remember any details. Perhaps something like, take the situation where a Good aligned character is confronting a succubus; The succubus repents, they have through a miracle seen the error of their ways. They state truly, without any trace of falsehood that they intend to dedicate the rest of their days to protecting orphans and raising money for charity, knowing it can never atone for the evils they have done already but believing it is their duty to do whatever they can to balance that debt.

Killing them is still an objectively Good act, because they have the Evil tag on a metaphysical level. Just like casting Deathwatch is an Evil act, regardless of what it actually does, or what you use it to do. It is simply, objectively Evil because the Universe says so.

If I could remember the ramifications of D&D objective morality better, I could probably state with some kind of certainty which good alignment is more likely to lead to acts which are actually kind of evil, despite being objectively Good and not Evil according to the rules of the universe.
But I can't, so, uh, yeah. :smallsmile:

aberratio ictus
2014-02-18, 05:25 AM
But it also means you don't see yourself as Good.

Not everyone wakes up and thinks, "I'm going to save the world today!" Not everyone sees himself as the main character in the story of his life. Not everyone even pays attention to the story.

Not everyone bothers to justify his actions, let alone aggrandize them.

I will agree, however, that very few people are capable of seeing their own actions as Evil. They may recognize that others will see their actions as Evil, but most people find some way to rationalize what they do as at least "necessary," if not "Good." Most people can't truly accept their actions as so wrongful as to be Evil; otherwise they couldn't rationalize performing them.

This is also what I would have replied. Well said.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-18, 06:58 AM
Neutral Good, I believe, has the highest capacity for performing evil acts for the greater good.

Of all the alignments, I can see a well-intended Neutral Good character making a devil's deal (literally or figuratively) if they believe the results will save the most lives or provoke the least amount of horror on the world.

Does almost the entire Supernatural series come to anyone else's mind?
http://welovecult.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/spn_blood.jpg

Worgwood
2014-02-18, 08:45 AM
Neutral Good, I believe, has the highest capacity for performing evil acts for the greater good.

Of all the alignments, I can see a well-intended Neutral Good character making a devil's deal (literally or figuratively) if they believe the results will save the most lives or provoke the least amount of horror on the world.

Does almost the entire Supernatural series come to anyone else's mind?
While I haven't seen a great deal of Supernatural, what I have seen leads me to believe the Winchesters are pretty darn Chaotic. They frequently circumvent the law, impersonate law officers, deceive others, commit credit card fraud, etc. Dean especially seems to fall into a bit of the "Han Solo" archetype. But again, I haven't seen a great deal.

I don't believe that Law, Neutrality, or Chaos comes into play when a Good character sticks their toes in the Evil pool. The circumstances surrounding the character, his or her background and personality, and the details of the choice laid before them are far more impactful. Just because two people are Chaotic Good doesn't mean they're the same person; it just means they're both free-spirited altruists. They might not even necessarily get along.

Lorsa
2014-02-18, 08:56 AM
I know that the books disagree with me, but if I were playing Robin Hood, he'd be Lawful Good.

King Richard, his sovereign, is being held for ransom. The king's brother, Prince John, is beggaring the countryside with taxes and not paying the ransom. True loyalty to the law requires me to support my sovereign and oppose the evil regent. Richard's laws are the true laws, and Prince John and his minions are committing treason against him by collecting this money and not using it for the ransom, and by leaving Richard's subjects to starve.

Robin Hood does not steal generally - he steals only from tax collectors who are collecting taxes passed against the will of the king, and in ways that harm the king.

As I said, I know that the books disagree with me, but it is perfectly reasonable for a Lawful Good man to act as Robin Hood does.

And that makes it a perfect example to show why questions like the one in front of us are unanswerable. Alignment affects action, but doesn't determine it.

The reason the "books" don't agree with you in this case is because they don't look at the whole picture, like you do. They only see "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor".

Segev
2014-02-18, 09:07 AM
The reason the "books" don't agree with you in this case is because they don't look at the whole picture, like you do. They only see "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor".

Heck, modern popular mythos ignores just who the rich from whom he was robbing were. It wasn't wealthy businessmen or even guildsmen; it was the nobility, the government figures, whose wealth came from increasingly punitive taxation and who lived large with no accountability for how they spent the money taxed from the common folk.

Robin Hood was stealing from the IRS and the Federal Employees who are throwing lavish parties in Las Vegas on taxpayer money to give back to those who were taxed: the rapidly declining middle class. (It's harder to see the parallel simply because there really wasn't a CONCEPT of a middle class in King Richard's time. The merchant classes were tiny and often ostracized when they were successful; most "merchants" even were poor peddlers who traveled town to town and scraped by.)

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 09:30 AM
The reason the "books" don't agree with you in this case is because they don't look at the whole picture, like you do. They only see "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor".

Alternatively - it has to do with Robin being willing to bend his own personal code:


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.

Angel Bob
2014-02-18, 10:14 AM
This isn't a Good vs. Evil question, it's a Law vs. Chaos question. In my experience, when you ask people to choose between Law and Chaos, the division lies along political lines, which is why I have dire predictions for this thread.

Personally, I'm Lawful as all hell, but that doesn't mean that I consider Chaotic Good to be any more "evil" than Lawful Good; I just disagree with it. You know, that whole "Good" word actually means "not Evil", by its very definition.

LibraryOgre
2014-02-18, 11:45 AM
Hey guys. It's time for an opinion post. The basic question is: of the good alignments, which one is the most "evil." I get that none of them are truly, but which one is capable of doing the most heinous acts, or even terrible thoughts.


I think your definitions of law and chaos are inherently flawed, and so arguments proceeding from them are fundamentally so.

I tend to view Law and Chaos as being about "Things"... not just objects, but concepts. A lawful person respects things... they do not steal, sure, but they also respect certain cultural concepts and, to an extent, respect others cultural concepts. A lawful person respects your code of ethics, even if it diverges from his own, unless it conflicts with his morals (the GNE axis).

A Chaotic person does not care about your things. They will freely violate your "things" (including property rights) if it furthers their own goals; they don't respect your code unless it happens to coincide with their own.

Neutral is, unsurprisingly, between the two. They won't violate your "things" just because, but they don't necessarily respect them, either. This compromise nature is why a lot of people tend towards a neutral alignment... they don't put a lot of thought into their code or your code, so while they don't do things just to violate your code, they don't mind too much when they accidentally violate it.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 11:56 AM
A Chaotic person does not care about your things. They will freely violate your "things" (including property rights) if it furthers their own goals; they don't respect your code unless it happens to coincide with their own.

How about LE tyrannical characters, and heads of Thieves Guilds? I could see Evil being about "violate your things, for their own goals".

Segev
2014-02-18, 11:56 AM
I don't quite agree. Chaotic types can perfectly well respect your "things." They are about freedom for themselves and possibly others. CE is the one that won't respect your "things" at all. CN will respect your "things" as long as they don't in any way infringe on his. CN thieves tend to steal based on the theory that their "things" include a right to enjoy nice stuff, and you having it without sharing is infringing on that.

There are reasons why thievery tends to be on the southern end of neutral, as a general rule. CG only supports theft if there are good, non-selfish reasons, and even THEN only if it's because the "theft" is only by technicality of the law.

Jay R
2014-02-18, 12:00 PM
By definition, Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good are equally good. It's like asking which spot on the arctic circle is further north.

If you are playing one of them as more evil, then you're playing a different alignment.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-18, 12:03 PM
Well, technically you can have two good-aligned characters from which one will be more evil than the other. Alignment is not absolute; you can have some minor evil traits or do some evil things in the past (or minor evil things in the present) and still be good.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 12:09 PM
True.

A case could be made that LG and CG respectively, because of their non-good facets, may be willing to excuse Evil acts in service to those facets.

So- a LG character's few Evil acts, might be "toward Lawful ends"
And a CG character's few Evil acts, might be "toward Chaotic ends".

Of course, you could have the same divided loyalties, with a NG character, like a druid - mostly Good - but willing to commit the occasional Evil act now and again "to protect Nature".

Scow2
2014-02-18, 12:27 PM
By definition, Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good are equally good. It's like asking which spot on the arctic circle is further north.

If you are playing one of them as more evil, then you're playing a different alignment.

Actually, I'd say that Neutral Good is "More Good" because of the lack of adherence to Law or Chaos. The Alignments form a circle, not a square.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 12:32 PM
Of course, Law and Chaos aren't the only things out there that can divide one's loyalties.

illyahr
2014-02-18, 01:15 PM
I've always viewed alignment on a sliding scale, rather than as blocks. No one thing will move you from one section to another, but a series of acts will cause you to slide. This has nothing to do with the alignment itself and more to do with the person performing the deeds.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 01:17 PM
I've always viewed alignment on a sliding scale, rather than as blocks. No one thing will move you from one section to another, but a series of acts will cause you to slide. This has nothing to do with the alignment itself and more to do with the person performing the deeds.

Would acts be said to reflect the inner nature of the person in this case?

With the willingness to do them, being the evidence that the person's nature has changed?

illyahr
2014-02-18, 01:22 PM
Would acts be said to reflect the inner nature of the person in this case?

With the willingness to do them, being the evidence that the person's nature has changed?

I have a standard +/- ranking for various good/evil/lawful/chaotic acts with adjustments for intent and sincerity. The whole thing is set on a -100/100 scale on each axis, with -33 through 33 being Neutral on each one.

Example: performing a Good act with the sole purpose of raising your alignment negates the bonus as you did so for a selfish reason. Performing an Evil act to save a friend wouldn't hit as hard as you were doing so for an altruistic reason.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 01:29 PM
Makes sense.

Do you allow aligned acts besides Good ones to "lose their alignment completely (for mechanical purposes)" if the countering factors are strong enough?

For example, if the Evil act is murder, and the mitigating factor is "extreme altruism - Save Lots of People" - would a paladin doing it Not Fall?

illyahr
2014-02-18, 01:41 PM
Makes sense.

Do you allow aligned acts besides Good ones to "lose their alignment completely (for mechanical purposes)" if the countering factors are strong enough?

For example, if the Evil act is murder, and the mitigating factor is "extreme altruism - Save Lots of People" - would a paladin doing it Not Fall?

Depends on the situation. Is the victim aware of the situation? If the victim knows the reasoning and agrees, its a sacrifice and not murder. The Paladin would not lose their status.

If the victim knows and doesn't agree, it is murder but would not trigger a fall. The blame for the act lies on the one to force the Paladin's hand. The Paladin would effectively be on probation until they confessed to an appropriate Cleric or Priest.

If the victim was unaware, then Paladin would lose powers. He/She made no effort to make it easy on the victim.

So a Paladin could commit an Evil act as long as they made every attempt to mitigate the damage as much as possible and not technically fall (provided they didn't do so while on probation). As long as they remain Lawful Good (above 33 on both the Ethic and Morality scale) they wouldn't fall.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 01:50 PM
If the victim knows and doesn't agree, it is murder but would not trigger a fall. The blame for the act lies on the one to force the Paladin's hand.

What if no-one forced the Paladin's hand in the first place?

(Imagine a 21st century paladin in this case - with Lay on Hands not being any help in the case of organ failure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

illyahr
2014-02-18, 02:04 PM
What if no-one forced the Paladin's hand in the first place?

(Imagine a 21st century paladin in this case - with Lay on Hands not being any help in the case of organ failure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

What makes this wanderer's life worth less than those that were dying? What is to stop a person from continuously taking another's organs to prolong his own life? A respect for life is also a respect for the end of life.

This isn't just murder, it is also multiple counts of theft (one for each organ) and multiple counts of fraud (on the necessary paperwork for each surgery). Granted, the motives are altruistic. However, that would be overwhelmed by the sheer evil of the acts themselves.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 02:08 PM
Indeed.

Question is - is there a "lower limit" for the number of lives saved by a murder - with lives saved above that limit, being enough of a mitigating factor for a paladin to Not Fall?

Alternatively - instead of "Fall or not Fall" might it be easier, for mitigating factors to determine how far a paladin falls? With a "small fall" involving losing one class ability - a medium fall involving losing several, and a major fall involving losing them all?

illyahr
2014-02-18, 02:13 PM
Indeed.

Question is - is there a "lower limit" for the number of lives saved by a murder - with lives saved above that limit, being enough of a mitigating factor for a paladin to Not Fall?

I'd have to make a call on a case-by-case basis. There are too many things to consider to leave up to such a broad decision, not the least of which is getting into the territory of "punishment for acts not yet performed" sort of thinking.

I don't think any person has the wisdom to make such a sweeping decision. The best one can do is make the best call they can as the situation arises.

A favorite quote of mine, though I forget where I heard it: "There are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule. Yes, even this one."

Red Fel
2014-02-18, 02:23 PM
What if no-one forced the Paladin's hand in the first place?

(Imagine a 21st century paladin in this case - with Lay on Hands not being any help in the case of organ failure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

Which just brings us back to the consequentialism vs. categoricalism view of Good. The consequentialist says you must turn the trolley car to save the most people, and you must kill the traveler because five lives are worth more than one. The categoricalist says you cannot turn the trolley car, and you cannot kill the traveler, because it is better that people die through your inaction than that you actively choose to take a life.

When we start imposing real-life philosophical metrics, Good and Evil in D&D becomes as complex and convoluted as, well, Good and Evil in real-life.

Fortunately, the writers of D&D prepared for this, either knowingly or unknowingly, by making explicit that Good and Evil in the D&D cosmology are arbitrary and concrete. One cannot, for example, perform a Good act through Evil means. Thus, if a Paladin is confronted with the choice between killing an innocent child or letting an entire village die, he cannot kill the child, because that would be an explicitly Evil act, consequences be damned.

In essence, D&D, by imposing concrete rules of Good and Evil, regardless of context or consequence, follows a more Kantian, categorical perspective of Good and Evil.

To bring this back to the topic, then - which of the three Good alignments is most capable of switching from an arbitrary, categorical imperative view of Goodness, to a contextual, consequentialist position? In the D&D cosmology, a consequentialist position is better able to justify an Evil action, as the ends justify the means. Consequentialism embraces the whole "needs of the many" argument, for instance. So which of the three alignments - LG, NG, or CG - can be consequentialist?

I would argue, by that metric, that CG is the most likely to be consequentialist, and therefore the most likely to disobey D&D's more categorical concepts of Good and Evil. CG is able to, for instance, break the rules to do what it feels is right; an LG character would not break those rules, generally speaking. Thus, despite an LG character having greater potential to come across as cold or merciless (which I find a poor characterization of the alignment), CG actually has the greater capacity to perform an arbitrarily Evil act in pursuit of a Good aim.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 02:23 PM
I don't think any person has the wisdom to make such a sweeping decision. The best one can do is make the best call they can as the situation arises.


DM's are encouraged to be forgiving regarding paladins being tricked into harming the innocent - or accidentally causing disaster:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

illyahr
2014-02-18, 02:31 PM
DM's are encouraged to be forgiving regarding paladins being tricked into harming the innocent - or accidentally causing disaster:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.


True. That's why I said I'd have to know more about a situation. He was tricked? Yes, I'd be lenient as long as he tried to mitigate the damage. He does it deliberately? I'd have to know the exact situation.

I think we have side-tracked the thread, however. If you would like to PM me about this further, I'd be more than willing to discuss it.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 02:45 PM
So far - the consensus seems to me to be that all 3 Good alignments are all capable of evil - there isn't really one significantly more capable than the others.

Does that seem like an accurate summary to you?

illyahr
2014-02-18, 02:49 PM
Sounds about right to me. No one alignment is more or less capable of evil than any other. Actions aren't determined by alignments, actions create alignments. If a "lawful good" character is acting lawful neutral, shift him lawful neutral.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-18, 05:03 PM
While I haven't seen a great deal of Supernatural, what I have seen leads me to believe the Winchesters are pretty darn Chaotic. They frequently circumvent the law, impersonate law officers, deceive others, commit credit card fraud, etc. Dean especially seems to fall into a bit of the "Han Solo" archetype. But again, I haven't seen a great deal.

I don't believe that Law, Neutrality, or Chaos comes into play when a Good character sticks their toes in the Evil pool. The circumstances surrounding the character, his or her background and personality, and the details of the choice laid before them are far more impactful. Just because two people are Chaotic Good doesn't mean they're the same person; it just means they're both free-spirited altruists. They might not even necessarily get along.

An astute point, but they also tend to follow orders as well. The main characters are basically soldiers in a war between angels and demons, where they spend most of their time being outclassed and overpowered. So they get stuff done by aligning themselves with a higher order, like Casiel throughout most of the seasons. I dunno. This is a tricky question, and I struggle to form a good example of "good" aligned characters doing evil because of their political alignment. The L/N/C axis has nothing to do with morality. The G/N/E axis has little to do with moral alignment, for that matter. It's more an argument about your willingness to commit murder:

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

In the end a good aligned anything will try to protect innocent life. The difference is the approach.

hamishspence
2014-02-18, 05:11 PM
The G/N/E axis has little to do with moral alignment, for that matter. It's more an argument about your willingness to commit murder.

That's not the only factor though:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Conversely, one could argue that someone who "hurts, and/or oppresses, and/or debases", especially if they have the LE "bigotry" trait in spades:

He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.

could cross the line into Evil without ever being Willing To Murder.

illyahr
2014-02-19, 09:58 AM
An astute point, but they also tend to follow orders as well.

Following orders is one thing, respecting them is another. The Winchesters follow orders because they have to, not because they respect them or believe in Chain of Command. They were more than willing to fight against their "leaders" as soon as it looked like they didn't have humanity's best interests in mind. This says Chaotic to me so I'd call them Chaotic Good.

Jay R
2014-02-19, 01:18 PM
Which is taller - fifty volts or 100 volts?

Which is faster - red, yellow, or blue?

Which is further east - the Tropic of Cancer, the Tropic of Capricorn, or the equator?

Which is heavier - truth or beauty?

Which is more purple - fear, surprise, or a ruthless efficiency?

Which is smarter - dirt, water, or a rock?

Which is more evil - Lawful Good, Neutral Good, or Chaotic Good?

The answer, in all cases, is that it isn't measured on that scale.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-19, 01:26 PM
Which is faster - red, yellow, or blue?


Red 'uns go fasta.

Tiki Snakes
2014-02-19, 02:10 PM
Which is taller - fifty volts or 100 volts?

Which is faster - red, yellow, or blue?

Which is further east - the Tropic of Cancer, the Tropic of Capricorn, or the equator?

Which is heavier - truth or beauty?

Which is more purple - fear, surprise, or a ruthless efficiency?

Which is smarter - dirt, water, or a rock?

Which is more evil - Lawful Good, Neutral Good, or Chaotic Good?

The answer, in all cases, is that it isn't measured on that scale.

1. 100 volts, if you spell it out and turn it on it's side.
2. Red ones go faster.
3. The equator is at the wider part of the planet, afaik. So, if you unfold the world into a flat plane, it will be both further east and further west than the others due to curvature.
4. Truth is much heavier, sometimes.
5. Fear is yellow, or black. Surprise doesn't resonate with a colour for me. Ruthless Efficiency reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition, who wore purple gloves. So that one.
6. Dirt. On account of the microbes in the soil. Arguably Water for a similar reason, but I'm going with Dirt.
7. Whichever one when followed according to D&D's objective morality, clashes most with real world subjective ethics. Which is probably Lawful Good, but I forget.

Lateral thinking Quiz is best Quiz.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-19, 03:09 PM
That's not the only factor though:
My apologies, I didn't mean to imply that was the only trait. I intended to put it a large concept into nutshell. Yes, of course there are other factors that figure into the moral axis, but when distilled down to its most fundamental rule, the L/N/E axis is about an adventurers compunctions toward the preservation or destruction of innocent life.

Also… where are you finding the Bigotry trait? :smallconfused: Is that a homebrew trait? It would've fit a Paladin of Tyranny character I made perfectly. He was such and elitist pri-… er… jerk. :smalltongue:


The Winchesters follow orders because they have to, not because they respect them or believe in Chain of Command.

I didn't get that out of the series. I get the impression that they rely on authority, but are not above rebelling against authority if said leaders intentions or ambitions misalign with their personal interests, which may give them a CG feel, but still fits comfortably in the NG category.


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.

I don't think they rebel against authority as a defining characteristic, so much as their own interpretation of what is necessary to support their cause. I have to admit though, my wife is the bigger Supernatural fan than I am. I miss out on the more subtle nuances of the series, because I usually let it play in the background while I play PbP D&D. But from what I gather, when it comes to the Winchesters, respect has to be earned, not given. Once earned, it holds against most tests of loyalty.

Hmm… perhaps in the newer episodes, Sam has been much more of a "DIY-screw-authority" type. But he's been through a lot lately which will affect ones perspective on life, law and morality. So he might a suitable fit for CG or even CN alignment.

AMFV
2014-02-19, 03:14 PM
Lawful Good is the most evil alignment of the Good ones, they tend to put the law into a place of high authority, which inevitably will result in some evil without intention at some points. Since a restrictive and forceful law can create evil, also they are uncompromising.

Chaotic Good is the most evil alignment of the Good ones, because they put their own gut feelings and free will over the general Good, because they often reject traditions and laws that are good traditions and laws without meaning.

Neutral Good is the most evil alignment of the Good ones, because in striving to maintain a balance between their own conflicted nature, their instincts and their principles, they can have neither the strong instincts or principles that might prevent them from doing things that are evil.

Coidzor
2014-02-19, 03:16 PM
I believe the question is as fundamentally flawed as the thought process that went into the developers deciding that Lawful Good was Goodest Good during the creation of the Book of Exalted Deeds and then again being formally codified during the development of 4e.

illyahr
2014-02-19, 03:28 PM
Which is taller - fifty volts or 100 volts?

Which is faster - red, yellow, or blue?

Which is further east - the Tropic of Cancer, the Tropic of Capricorn, or the equator?

Which is heavier - truth or beauty?

Which is more purple - fear, surprise, or a ruthless efficiency?

Which is smarter - dirt, water, or a rock?

Which is more evil - Lawful Good, Neutral Good, or Chaotic Good?

The answer, in all cases, is that it isn't measured on that scale.

1. 100 volts. It goes twice as high
2. Red is faster as the Hz is higher
3. Capricorn. Cancer can be removed and Equator is between the two.
4. Beauty. Truth will break your bonds and set you free
5. Surprise. Purple Heart awarded for injury in combat and you won't be injured unless they surprise you.
6. Water. It's the universal solver
7. Chaotic Good. Old D&D was measured on a Law vs. Chaos scale, so it's the one with the most experience at it.

Yes, I can be a smartass. :smallamused:

illyahr
2014-02-19, 03:31 PM
I believe the question is as fundamentally flawed as the thought process that went into the developers deciding that Lawful Good was Goodest Good during the creation of the Book of Exalted Deeds and then again being formally codified during the development of 4e.

Exactly. The answer to which is more evil is Mu. The question cannot be answered as asked.

MukkTB
2014-02-19, 04:12 PM
N/G and C/G get caught up in other things a bit more. However as stated, alignment in game doesn't track well into real life. In game I find it much more interesting to just characterize people and give them solid motives than to worry overmuch about the alignment chart. The alignment chart works for some in game effects, but for storytelling purposes I prefer not to label people as simply good or evil.

veti
2014-02-19, 05:16 PM
The reason the "books" don't agree with you in this case is because they don't look at the whole picture, like you do. They only see "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor".

But (as I'm sure Jay R is aware), what he described is not "the whole picture" by a long shot.

The "supporting the true king" rubric is only one interpretation of Robin Hood, and not the "original" one either. The story began with Robin as a simple, if generous, bandit, and the political "justification" was tacked on several centuries later, to suit the changing political agendas of the people retelling the story. (Which is how myths work.)

Dawgmoah
2014-02-19, 05:50 PM
Very few people consider themself evil. Everyone is the hero in their own eyes.

However, just because you see yourself as good doesn't mean you actually are good.

The inventor of the guillotine thought he was offering a cleaner, painless form of death. Richard Gatling thought his Gatling gun would end fighting since the price of marching against one would be prohibitive. Alfred Nobel invented Nitroglycerin, Oppenheimer thought the atomic bomb would end all wars and helped formulate the, "Mutually Assured Destruction" doctrine.

But were they evil?

Dawgmoah
2014-02-19, 05:52 PM
Which is taller - fifty volts or 100 volts?



On my oscilloscope 100 volts creates a taller signal than 50.

But I know the point you're trying to make, just having fun.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-19, 08:43 PM
I believe the question is as fundamentally flawed as the thought process that went into the developers deciding that Lawful Good was Goodest Good during the creation of the Book of Exalted Deeds and then again being formally codified during the development of 4e.

I think it's meant to be kind of a philosophical exercise, with no wrong or right answer. It's not that the question is flawed, so much as the question is irrelevant, which doesn't stop it from being a fun question to ask or ponder on. :smallsmile:

As for me, I suspect that NG would be the most willing to do something evil in order to serve the greater good.

But it's a fair enough point to argue that LG might be the most willing to enforce an evil law if that evil law was the lesser of two evil options.

Of course one could always say that the rebellious nature inherent in a CG alignment could get them in with the "wrong crowd" resulting in the highest involvement in mischief or evil shenanigans, thereby winning the "evil competition" by quantity over quality.

It makes for an amusing RP introspective at the very least.

Raimun
2014-02-19, 11:02 PM
None of the three Good alignments are more Evil than the others.

Of course, NG is most concerned with Good since Law and Chaos are always secondary concerns for NGs, while LGs and CGs honor one of them as much as Good. However, neither Law or Chaos is more Evil than the other.

It's a tie.

And yes, all three types of Good creatures are as likely to commit Evil acts. However, if an individual creature keeps it up, it won't remain as Good. It's the creature that's found wanting, not the whole alignment.

SowZ
2014-02-20, 12:50 AM
I tend to think of Neutral Good as the paragon of goodness since they have no other bias but to Good, though most people view LG as that paragon. *Shrugs.*

Coidzor
2014-02-20, 01:12 AM
I think it's meant to be kind of a philosophical exercise, with no wrong or right answer. It's not that the question is flawed, so much as the question is irrelevant, which doesn't stop it from being a fun question to ask or ponder on. :smallsmile:

As for me, I suspect that NG would be the most willing to do something evil in order to serve the greater good.

But it's a fair enough point to argue that LG might be the most willing to enforce an evil law if that evil law was the lesser of two evil options.

Of course one could always say that the rebellious nature inherent in a CG alignment could get them in with the "wrong crowd" resulting in the highest involvement in mischief or evil shenanigans, thereby winning the "evil competition" by quantity over quality.

It makes for an amusing RP introspective at the very least.

Elevating one good alignment above all others, lowering one to being lesser than the other two, or developing a tiered ranking for them are all hallmarks of bad DMs is the thing.

So the very concept just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and feels like a trap question, like what they're really asking is to show up the flaws you'd exhibit if you went down the path of bad DMing. :smallyuk:

inexorabletruth
2014-02-20, 05:09 AM
Elevating one good alignment above all others, lowering one to being lesser than the other two, or developing a tiered ranking for them are all hallmarks of bad DMs is the thing.

So the very concept just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and feels like a trap question, like what they're really asking is to show up the flaws you'd exhibit if you went down the path of bad DMing. :smallyuk:

I wasn't aware we were doing that. :smallconfused:

Personally, I like when a character has character. Whether I'm a DM or a PC, I prefer to create good characters who struggle with weaknesses. Or evil characters with at least a few redeeming qualities. So, by hearing other people's thoughts on how evil a good aligned character can be based on the inherent conflicts of their political alignment help (imho) to develop a character with depth and dimension through internal conflict.

But I've always thought that your posts were particularly insightful and well informed. Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression from this thread. Or maybe I'm just choosing to take from it what I want… picking the meat from the bones, so to speak.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-20, 07:08 AM
I tend to think of Neutral Good as the paragon of goodness since they have no other bias but to Good

See, I don't agree with this logic. It assumes that lawful and chaotic characters have a conscious allegiance to law and chaos respectively. That's the case only for few of them. "Good above all" is a sentiment all good characters can have, no matter if they're lawful, neutral or chaotic.

Coidzor
2014-02-20, 04:12 PM
I wasn't aware we were doing that. :smallconfused:

Personally, I like when a character has character. Whether I'm a DM or a PC, I prefer to create good characters who struggle with weaknesses. Or evil characters with at least a few redeeming qualities. So, by hearing other people's thoughts on how evil a good aligned character can be based on the inherent conflicts of their political alignment help (imho) to develop a character with depth and dimension through internal conflict.

But I've always thought that your posts were particularly insightful and well informed. Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression from this thread. Or maybe I'm just choosing to take from it what I want… picking the meat from the bones, so to speak.

Nah, I've probably just got a bug up my ass for no reason or something. XD

Prince Raven
2014-02-22, 12:13 AM
A Neutral Good character who values neutrality more than good may allow evil to occur by refusing to take a side.
A Chaotic Good character who values chaos more than good may assist evil if the believe they are being unfairly constrained.
A Lawful Good character who values lawfulness more than good may actively support an evil regime or enforce evil laws, and thus become an instrument of evil themselves.

Of the 3, I see the Lawful Good character being capable of the greatest evil, due to the inflexibility inherent in the Lawful alignment. Some of the greatest acts of evil in human history have been carried out by those who decided to do what was right instead of what was good. As a GM, I find it easier to create a scenario where a Lawful Good character will knowingly choose to do evil than the other alignments.

Wardog
2014-02-22, 05:21 AM
Now see, that's just like, your chaotic opinion, man. :smallwink:

Just as easily, you could argue that the CG Character serves two masters. Good, and his own whims, aka Chaos. Maybe he should bring that evil sorceress to justice, but damn, she's just too attractive, and our character is a lady-killer (not literally). Maybe he's just naive, and lets himself be persuaded with a hastily invented sob-story.

There are ways to compromise both of them, and it is up to the character, whether it works or not.

Joe says, in his experience, if we take in account players, it would be LG.
In my experience, it would definitely be CG, but then again, I realise that's because of the people I play with.

Other ways a CG character could end up doing more harm:

* Ignoring "a load of pointless rules that people only follow because that's what they've alway done, rather than thinking for themselves", only to discover that yes, there was a good reason for them (even if people were no longer sure what it was) and disaster results. (Or alternatively, the rules were arbitrary, but because they have been followed for so long, society has become dependent on them being followed, and going against them causes problems for that reason - e.g. laws on which side of the road you should drive on).

* Or:
CG: "The King is a tyrant! His taxes are too high, and his police and soldiers are never properly punished when they abuse their power! We should overthrow him!"
LG: "But he also provides peace and stability, and overtrhowing him might just make things worse."
CG: "That's just 'Ends justify the means'-style pandering. Never compromise with tyranny! Who's with me?"
Mob of angry peasants: "We are! Viva la revolution!"
<cue months of civil war, leading to massive death and destruction, after which there is a good chance the king either regains control, thereby making the whole thing pointless, or some other, worse faction siezes power>
CG: "Okay, that didn't work, but at least we tried, right? The only way to guarentee failure is never to try."
Mob of angry peasants: <no answer, because they are all dead or in prison>

SowZ
2014-02-22, 02:46 PM
See, I don't agree with this logic. It assumes that lawful and chaotic characters have a conscious allegiance to law and chaos respectively. That's the case only for few of them. "Good above all" is a sentiment all good characters can have, no matter if they're lawful, neutral or chaotic.

Sure, and most good characters generally respect Good over their other axis. Which is why some people find Paladins who aren't Lawful Stupid odd. They don't get that most Paladins should probably favor Good over Lawful. But still, Neutral Good character won't have a bias. They are less likely to engage in conflicts solely for the purpose of Good, whereas a LG or CG character might engage in a conflict that doesn't advance the sides of either Good or Evil for the sake of their other bias.

(A Chaotic Good character might side with a rebellion when neither the government nor the rebellion is Evil. A Lawful Good one might side with the non-Evil establishment, even if their goals aren't Good.)

For this reason, I find it likely that CG characters and LG ones might spend more of their time maintaining or resisting order whereas a NG character would be more likely searching for a Good option and, if none existed, not get involved. Yes, they may be a bit more prone to uninvolvement. But talking about a poster child for Goodness? That person should stay out of Lawful v. Chaotic squabbles, or else try and make peace in the middle.

And I don't necessarily mean the CG or LG characters will get involved violently, either. The CG character might try and topple the government with shenanigans and the LG character might try and crush the resistance diplomatically.

There are of course many exceptions, and many CG characters aren't concerned with libertarian societies or anarchy just like some LG ones don't give a whip about local authorities. But I'm talking in generalities. If Good is going to have a poster child, it is less arbitrary for it to be Neutral Good as opposed to Lawful Good. As it stands, most people consider Lawful Good the 'most' Good or the face of Good which I find senseless.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-22, 03:30 PM
Some say inaction is the biggest threat to goodness.
One could argue NG is more prone to that than CG or LG.

Just take a Lawful v. Chaotic squabble. Let's say there's a city with a very lawful government. Let's further say there are chaotic forces which seek to topple the lawful authorities. There's a LG person, a CG person and a NG person entering the city and they learn about the conflict - the LG person and the CG person get involved (as you said, the CG person maybe by spreading harmless shenanigans and the LG person with diplomacy) the NG doesn't, since there is no obvious good action.

Well, there isn't a obvious one. When LG guy and CG guy get involved, they might just discover that one of the parties has a more sinister side to it, and it's even possible that they will switch sides once they notice, and they now actively champion a good cause.

Whereas the NG guy has just let the bad guys win.

Inaction might be just as much as a problem than lawful or chaotic "allegiance".

SowZ
2014-02-22, 04:13 PM
Some say inaction is the biggest threat to goodness.
One could argue NG is more prone to that than CG or LG.

Just take a Lawful v. Chaotic squabble. Let's say there's a city with a very lawful government. Let's further say there are chaotic forces which seek to topple the lawful authorities. There's a LG person, a CG person and a NG person entering the city and they learn about the conflict - the LG person and the CG person get involved (as you said, the CG person maybe by spreading harmless shenanigans and the LG person with diplomacy) the NG doesn't, since there is no obvious good action.

Well, there isn't a obvious one. When LG guy and CG guy get involved, they might just discover that one of the parties has a more sinister side to it, and it's even possible that they will switch sides once they notice, and they now actively champion a good cause.

Whereas the NG guy has just let the bad guys win.

Inaction might be just as much as a problem than lawful or chaotic "allegiance".

But he may be instead just help the victims of the conflict and care nothing about which side wins. If he's really good, he likely won't ignore suffering. Unaligned doesn't mean do nothing. In a Civil War with no morally superior side, the best faction may be the one who provides aid and medicine to the victims of both sides.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-22, 04:23 PM
Why yes, but that's simply speculation. I'm just showing a possibility.

The big problem is, that we're talking about an endless range of characters in an endless range of situations.

I'm just saying that NG inaction or "neutrality" might be just as big as a problem as CG or LG allegiance to their other axis.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-22, 04:42 PM
Well let me throw my opinion into the ring. None are evil for the simple fact that they wouldn't be good if they were evil. So this more questionable decisions

LG I'd say is more prone to acting like they are superior and that their way is right. They can be arrogant, overbearing and constantly preaching that they are the best. They might punish behavior they consider wrong, not in a cruel way but the way a parent might punish a child.

CG is more prone to being negligent. Yeah they'll save you from the bandits that burned down your village, but they aren't going to help you rebuild, and they might not prioritize telling someone about the situation. They also may suck at prioritizing on where the greatest good can be done or what the big threat is. Finally they are more prone to meddle when it honestly isn't any of their business.

NG is the worst because they can take traits from either CG and LG.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-22, 05:05 PM
Simply because I have a history of turning things around in this thread:

Acting like they are superior and that their way is right: "I'm the only thinking person in a world of sheep!"

Being negligent: "Not my jurisdiction, ma'am."

Can you tell where those two people stand on the law-chaos axis? :smallwink:

inexorabletruth
2014-02-22, 05:37 PM
Well let me throw my opinion into the ring. None are evil for the simple fact that they wouldn't be good if they were evil. So this more questionable decisions

LG I'd say is more prone to acting like they are superior and that their way is right. They can be arrogant, overbearing and constantly preaching that they are the best. They might punish behavior they consider wrong, not in a cruel way but the way a parent might punish a child.

CG is more prone to being negligent. Yeah they'll save you from the bandits that burned down your village, but they aren't going to help you rebuild, and they might not prioritize telling someone about the situation. They also may suck at prioritizing on where the greatest good can be done or what the big threat is. Finally they are more prone to meddle when it honestly isn't any of their business.

NG is the worst because they can take traits from either CG and LG.

Idk… lawful anything believes in a structured society. So naturally the amount of followers will outnumber the amount of leaders in any given organization. So… if I were to bet on the odds, I'd say an LG character is more prone to acting like someone else is superior and that someone else is right. Which is why they took their oaths to serve that superior officer/liege/god(s)/whatever. I'm not sure if I can picture arrogance as an inherent characteristic of LG. Pride, definitely. *nods eagerly* But those two words aren't interchangeable. Take that pride and build it on a lie, and it stands to reason that LG types could flip their lid pretty fast. When heroes self-destruct, it can sometimes be a pretty scary thing.

AMFV
2014-02-22, 05:39 PM
Well let me throw my opinion into the ring. None are evil for the simple fact that they wouldn't be good if they were evil. So this more questionable decisions

LG I'd say is more prone to acting like they are superior and that their way is right. They can be arrogant, overbearing and constantly preaching that they are the best. They might punish behavior they consider wrong, not in a cruel way but the way a parent might punish a child.

CG is more prone to being negligent. Yeah they'll save you from the bandits that burned down your village, but they aren't going to help you rebuild, and they might not prioritize telling someone about the situation. They also may suck at prioritizing on where the greatest good can be done or what the big threat is. Finally they are more prone to meddle when it honestly isn't any of their business.

NG is the worst because they can take traits from either CG and LG.

I'd also like to add that NG can be worse because they haven't got the same principles (LG) or the same degree of flexibility (CG) while they don't have the bad aspects in the same proportion they don't get the full advantages iin the same proportion either.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-22, 05:41 PM
I'd also like to add that NG can be worse because they haven't got the same principles (LG) or the same degree of flexibility (CG) while they don't have the bad aspects in the same proportion they don't get the full advantages iin the same proportion either.

That's a very good argument, as well.

SowZ
2014-02-22, 05:47 PM
Well let me throw my opinion into the ring. None are evil for the simple fact that they wouldn't be good if they were evil. So this more questionable decisions

LG I'd say is more prone to acting like they are superior and that their way is right. They can be arrogant, overbearing and constantly preaching that they are the best. They might punish behavior they consider wrong, not in a cruel way but the way a parent might punish a child.

CG is more prone to being negligent. Yeah they'll save you from the bandits that burned down your village, but they aren't going to help you rebuild, and they might not prioritize telling someone about the situation. They also may suck at prioritizing on where the greatest good can be done or what the big threat is. Finally they are more prone to meddle when it honestly isn't any of their business.

NG is the worst because they can take traits from either CG and LG.

But they are also more likely to not have the bad traits from either. Simply put, a Neutral Good person should just do what they think is right, whereas a CG generally does what is right in respect to liberty and the LG does what is right in respect to a stringent code or authority. The NG is beholden to Goodness and only Goodness.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-22, 07:23 PM
Simply because I have a history of turning things around in this thread:

Acting like they are superior and that their way is right: "I'm the only thinking person in a world of sheep!"

Being negligent: "Not my jurisdiction, ma'am."

Can you tell where those two people stand on the law-chaos axis? :smallwink:

Sorry… didn't mean to ignore your question.

"I'm the only thinking person in a world of sheep!"
The first one doesn't really fit on any one part of the L/N/C axis specifically. I expect it would be from a character with really low wisdom and perhaps (but not necessarily) slightly above, or slightly below, average intelligence, because the quote sounds ridiculously sophomoric. I'd be a bit more interested in considering how each part of the L/N/C axis would respond to such a question.

Lawful: "Well that's your opinion, and while you're entitled to it, you'd be advised to keep it to yourself."
Neutral: "That just makes them easier to fleece. So let's go; my purse isn't going to fill itself."
Chaotic: *WHACK* "Try saying that again, but with fewer teeth!" *pounds a beer and starts slam dancing*


"Not my jurisdiction, ma'am."
This sounds pretty lawful, but not exclusive to LG. It could be LE, LN, or LG depending on the circumstances surrounding what brought that up.

SowZ
2014-02-22, 07:32 PM
"Not my jurisdiction, ma'am."
This sounds pretty lawful, but not exclusive to LG. It could be LE, LN, or LG depending on the circumstances surrounding what brought that up.

Though it could be a Neutral character who thinks it is a good excuse, or even a Chaotic character manipulating the system in order to undermine it. A smart enough Chaotic character is fully capable of playing the system and using the rules to their advantage. They are just more than happy to ditch the rules when they become inconvenient and more than likely are trying to tear the institution down from within. (This could be a CG spy in a wicked regime, too. It's not limited to Evil characters.)

Take Petyr Baelish from ASoIaF. On the outside, he looks like a poster child for Lawful Evil. But when you get down to it, he is as Chaotic as they come. He is just smart enough to know that being Chaotic-Stupid is... well... stupid.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-22, 08:05 PM
Though it could be a Neutral character who thinks it is a good excuse, or even a Chaotic character manipulating the system in order to undermine it. A smart enough Chaotic character is fully capable of playing the system and using the rules to their advantage. They are just more than happy to ditch the rules when they become inconvenient and more than likely are trying to tear the institution down from within. (This could be a CG spy in a wicked regime, too. It's not limited to Evil characters.)

Take Petyr Baelish from ASoIaF. On the outside, he looks like a poster child for Lawful Evil. But when you get down to it, he is as Chaotic as they come. He is just smart enough to know that being Chaotic-Stupid is... well... stupid.

True… but no one line can of dialog is capable of pinning a character down to a specific alignment. Alignment is more of a lifestyle and a personal code. Concepts of jurisdiction seem more essentially lawful, just like "I AM THE LAW!" sounds so quintessentially lawful.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/8/82989/1816608-2762247469_faf7e2b17d.jpg

But for a chaotic character, it can be a sarcastic comment for humor's sake,
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2012/12/dredd21.jpg

or even a bluff/intimidate check for a mischievous chaotic or neutral type trying to gain access to restricted people/places/or files.

I was taking the quote from the perspective of whether or not it is quintessentially lawful.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-22, 10:13 PM
Though it could be a Neutral character who thinks it is a good excuse, or even a Chaotic character manipulating the system in order to undermine it.

Of course. But that's also true for every lawful statement, sentiment or action I or anyone could possibly describe. That was not the point I was trying to make. I was trying the point that attributes like "being negligent" and "being arrogant" can be tied to any alignment just as well as the others, and thus this statement was meant to be taken at face value. What statement were you trying to make?

inexorabletruth - True, I was only trying to make a statement about lawful people on the whole, so you're right. Of course, that's also true for LG.

As for the "I'm the only thinking person in a world of sheep!" -

I'd say it's fairly obvious that it's chaotic because of the individualistic worldview and the disdain for perceived "blind followers" inherent in that statement. Of course, again, they could very well be the words of a CN or CE person - but that's not the point. Point is, it can be just as easily argued that is CG more prone to acting like they are superior and that their way is right. I, actually, would argue thus. But then again, it's some of the people I play with, that may be at fault here.

Remember, guys - that was a response to Forum Explorer's post, and should probably be viewed under that impression.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-23, 01:44 AM
Simply because I have a history of turning things around in this thread:

Acting like they are superior and that their way is right: "I'm the only thinking person in a world of sheep!"

Being negligent: "Not my jurisdiction, ma'am."

Can you tell where those two people stand on the law-chaos axis? :smallwink:

Well no because it's just a single line. You can't get an alignment from a sentance with zero context.

If I tried though?

The first line I would say is likely either Lawful or Neutral of some sort. The viewpoint implies that they should be the ones in charge because they are smarter then everyone else.

Second line I'd say is Lawful non-good. They are basically using the law to deny someone help, so I can't see how it would be good behavior in any case.

But overall I do see your point. However you missed the key word of 'prone to' in my argument. These behaviors aren't exclusive to one alignment, or required. Just I think that these behavior happen more often on one side then the other.



Idk… lawful anything believes in a structured society. So naturally the amount of followers will outnumber the amount of leaders in any given organization. So… if I were to bet on the odds, I'd say an LG character is more prone to acting like someone else is superior and that someone else is right. Which is why they took their oaths to serve that superior officer/liege/god(s)/whatever. I'm not sure if I can picture arrogance as an inherent characteristic of LG. Pride, definitely. *nods eagerly* But those two words aren't interchangeable. Take that pride and build it on a lie, and it stands to reason that LG types could flip their lid pretty fast. When heroes self-destruct, it can sometimes be a pretty scary thing.

Sure but that seems more a matter of schematics. And they still might look down on you for not following their leader, society, code, whatever.


But they are also more likely to not have the bad traits from either. Simply put, a Neutral Good person should just do what they think is right, whereas a CG generally does what is right in respect to liberty and the LG does what is right in respect to a stringent code or authority. The NG is beholden to Goodness and only Goodness.

Not at all. They are just as likely to be flawed as any other good person is.


For the record I think most humans IR lean towards being Lawful. On a species level. Also I think the alignment system is silly and shouldn't be taken seriously.

SowZ
2014-02-23, 02:39 AM
Well no because it's just a single line. You can't get an alignment from a sentance with zero context.

If I tried though?

The first line I would say is likely either Lawful or Neutral of some sort. The viewpoint implies that they should be the ones in charge because they are smarter then everyone else.

Second line I'd say is Lawful non-good. They are basically using the law to deny someone help, so I can't see how it would be good behavior in any case.

But overall I do see your point. However you missed the key word of 'prone to' in my argument. These behaviors aren't exclusive to one alignment, or required. Just I think that these behavior happen more often on one side then the other.




Sure but that seems more a matter of schematics. And they still might look down on you for not following their leader, society, code, whatever.



Not at all. They are just as likely to be flawed as any other good person is.


For the record I think most humans IR lean towards being Lawful. On a species level. Also I think the alignment system is silly and shouldn't be taken seriously.

But they don't have a greater chance to be more flawed. Someone said they are like to have the flaws most common on either ends of the Law-Chaos pool. That chance is outweighed by the possibility they have neither of those. Yes, they will be flawed. But surely Neutrality has its own most likely flaws and isn't stuck sharing those of both Law and Chaos?


Of course. But that's also true for every lawful statement, sentiment or action I or anyone could possibly describe. That was not the point I was trying to make. I was trying the point that attributes like "being negligent" and "being arrogant" can be tied to any alignment just as well as the others, and thus this statement was meant to be taken at face value. What statement were you trying to make?

inexorabletruth - True, I was only trying to make a statement about lawful people on the whole, so you're right. Of course, that's also true for LG.

As for the "I'm the only thinking person in a world of sheep!" -

I'd say it's fairly obvious that it's chaotic because of the individualistic worldview and the disdain for perceived "blind followers" inherent in that statement. Of course, again, they could very well be the words of a CN or CE person - but that's not the point. Point is, it can be just as easily argued that is CG more prone to acting like they are superior and that their way is right. I, actually, would argue thus. But then again, it's some of the people I play with, that may be at fault here.

Remember, guys - that was a response to Forum Explorer's post, and should probably be viewed under that impression.

Sure, that's fine.

AMFV
2014-02-23, 02:45 AM
But they don't have a greater chance to be more flawed. Someone said they are like to have the flaws most common on either ends of the Law-Chaos pool. That chance is outweighed by the possibility they have neither of those. Yes, they will be flawed. But surely Neutrality has its own most likely flaws and isn't stuck sharing those of both Law and Chaos?


I'd like to reiterate my previous point. The biggest problem for neutrality isn't that they have the same problems as Law and Chaos, but that they don't get the same strengths, they don't have a rigid moral framework to fall back on, and neither do they have the same superior instincts that their chaotic brothers do. The end point is that neutral isn't as likely to be evil as anything else on the good spectrum, but their lack of the advantages that are associated with the other sides hurts them on the moral side of things.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-23, 02:52 AM
For the record I think most humans IR lean towards being Lawful. On a species level.

:smallconfused: I always thought we were neutral aligned as a species. But maybe that's my culturally insular experience. I've only been to North America and a few countries in Europe. Maybe people are more lawful in other nations of the world?


Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what
seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a com- mitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

That sounds like most people I know, though it does not sound like the way most people I know would describe themselves. :smallwink:


Also I think the alignment system is silly and shouldn't be taken seriously.

When I DM, I insist that players pick an alignment, because it's an excellent roleplaying tool. I don't make them follow their alignment, nor do I allow other players to force another player to follow their alignment. Instead I appoint alignment pings when someone consistently displays behavior that fits outside of their alignment. Tools that help players step outside of "themselves" and get into their character are an important mechanic of traditional RPGs, imho.

TheOOB
2014-02-23, 03:33 AM
When I DM, I insist that players pick an alignment, because it's an excellent roleplaying tool. I don't make them follow their alignment, nor do I allow other players to force another player to follow their alignment. Instead I appoint alignment pings when someone consistently displays behavior that fits outside of their alignment. Tools that help players step outside of "themselves" and get into their character are an important mechanic of traditional RPGs, imho.

Ugh, I really don't like that. I prefer my players to just act out there character as they wish, and if I feel their actions don't match their alignment, I'll change it.

For which good alignment is the most evil, all good alignments are equally good, though individuals may differ. A chaotic good person is more willing to commit an evil act to achieve good, having a more flexible code, but a lawful good person may be unable or unwilling to do what needs to be done to help people in need.

If there is an evil, cruel, but legitimate dictator, a lawful person may work within the system to secure his downfall, while a chaotic character may just murder him. One it's an evil act(murder), but getting rid of him quicker may be better in the long run(or may not be, chaotic characters don't think through their plans as well))

inexorabletruth
2014-02-23, 03:54 AM
Ugh, I really don't like that. I prefer my players to just act out there character as they wish, and if I feel their actions don't match their alignment, I'll change it.

That's exactly what I do. I guess I didn't explain it well. :smallredface: I don't like to use alignment guidelines as straight jackets, but rather as RP tools to help a player focus on role play immersion. If a character evolves or devolves from one alignment to the next, I simply advise them that their alignment has changed to [insert new alignment here] as a result.

SowZ
2014-02-23, 03:54 AM
I'd like to reiterate my previous point. The biggest problem for neutrality isn't that they have the same problems as Law and Chaos, but that they don't get the same strengths, they don't have a rigid moral framework to fall back on, and neither do they have the same superior instincts that their chaotic brothers do. The end point is that neutral isn't as likely to be evil as anything else on the good spectrum, but their lack of the advantages that are associated with the other sides hurts them on the moral side of things.

But that's just it. They don't need the structure, they should simply do whatever they think is the right thing to do. You don't need an external framework for every moral decision and Chaotic characters don't necessarily have better intuition or instincts than anyone else. You could have a Lawful Character who effectively relies on their gut in stressful scenarios and it wouldn't be surprising. Just as a Chaotic character might have terrible instincts.


That's exactly what I do. I guess I didn't explain it well. :smallredface: I don't like to use alignment guidelines as straight jackets, but rather as RP tools to help a player focus on role play immersion. If a character evolves or devolves from one alignment to the next, I simply advise them that their alignment has changed to [insert new alignment here] as a result.

I usually just pic alignment based on A. a necessity for the class or B. I pick one semi-randomly then never think about it ever again. My characters are probably very inconsistent when looked at from an alignment perspective, because I don't build them with that in mind. If the DM wants to change my alignment every session because of it I don't give a hoot unless this is Old D&D where I lose a level for it.

If the framework helps some people get into character and learn how to make decisions that their character would make even if they wouldn't? Great, glad it works for them.

AMFV
2014-02-23, 03:59 AM
But that's just it. They don't need the structure, they should simply do whatever they think is the right thing to do. You don't need an external framework for every moral decision and Chaotic characters don't necessarily have better intuition or instincts than anyone else. You could have a Lawful Character who effectively relies on their gut in stressful scenarios and it wouldn't be surprising. Just as a Chaotic character might have terrible instincts.

Lawful characters are more likely to have a formal set of principles, chaotic characters are explicitly more likely to trust their instincts. Practice in both those areas will make them stronger, to argue that the alignments have no advantages, is to make them completely superfluous and meaningless.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-23, 04:09 AM
I usually just pic alignment based on A. a necessity for the class or B. I pick one semi-randomly then never think about it ever again. My characters are probably very inconsistent when looked at from an alignment perspective, because I don't build them with that in mind. If the DM wants to change my alignment every session because of it I don't give a hoot unless this is Old D&D where I lose a level for it.

What alternate guidelines do you base your RP on then? Alignment seems to be the easiest way to help develop a cohesive and consistent psychology for a character. Sure that alignment can change as a person evolves, but I'd be interested in hearing what tricks you use to develop your character's psyche and MO, provided it doesn't derail the thread too much.

SowZ
2014-02-23, 04:32 AM
Lawful characters are more likely to have a formal set of principles, chaotic characters are explicitly more likely to trust their instincts. Practice in both those areas will make them stronger, to argue that the alignments have no advantages, is to make them completely superfluous and meaningless.

Which I wouldn't really argue against. Not meaningless, necessarily, but definitely superficial. The issue is when Law is supposed to represent both rigidity in thinking and a tendency towards making the world a more orderly place. When Chaos means both expression of individuality and freedom as well as trusting your gut and intuition. These concepts aren't very closely linked, in my opinion.

A high ranking member of an anarchist group is just as likely to trust his gut as he is to be a highly manipulative, methodical person whose considered every aspect of his moral code and has a set in stone belief system. That belief system just happens to be one that concludes in total anarchy and his opinion of what liberty is. Where does that person fit in alignment?

Just like someone can never question the beliefs they grew up around, love order and structure, but make all their decisions based on gut instinct. In my experience, people who prefer not to think for themselves and stick to what they've been told tend to use their intuition and gut more than any other people I've met. It's just their instincts have been honed to stay in line with their rigid world view.


What alternate guidelines do you base your RP on then? Alignment seems to be the easiest way to help develop a cohesive and consistent psychology for a character. Sure that alignment can change as a person evolves, but I'd be interested in hearing what tricks you use to develop your character's psyche and MO, provided it doesn't derail the thread too much.

Sure, the alignment system probably does result in consistent behavior when used correctly. But who is actually consistent? I certainly don't know anybody.

I just don't think people fall into 'Good' and 'Evil' neatly. Some people have wholly given up on even trying to be ethical, sure, and there are people who are generally Good human beings. But people are Good in one respect, or in one situation, and Evil in another area of their life. Or maybe they would respond to a certain situation with the Good response one day, but the Evil one the following day. Or they would react differently to a moralistic situation based on hundreds of tiny factors including what shoes they are wearing and how many people said hello to them this morning.

It gets even more complicated with Chaos and Law. Most people try and break free from constraints they dislike and in the right circumstance would even join a violent rebellion, but they'd fight hard to defend an institution they felt comfortable in without even realizing said institution is just as if not more controlling than the one's they think are awful and crush the human soul.

I think basically everyone could act like any of the alignments based on the environment. Not the environment they are raised in, I mean, but their actual immediate surroundings and situations. Some people might never perform severe Evils just as some might not severe Goods, but alignment is just as much determined by location and circumstance as the individuals themselves.

Does that make any sense at all?

Anyway, to answer your question, if it is a character I really want to get deep into I decide their backstory. Their fears. What is their driving motivation. Their greatest strengths and their most defining shortcoming. How do people usually view them. How do they view themselves. What is their idealized version of themself. The basics of their ethical code or, if they lack one, their justifications for lacking one. Basic things like religion, political creed. What things do they pretend to care about and what do they actually care about. Are they brave or cowardly, honest or dishonest. Do they know themselves or do they lie to themself. Do they try and act by emotions or logic, do they trust internal thought processes and their gut or do they use external models, (might sound like Law and Chaos but I'd disagree. A scientist, for example, usually relies on the scientific method and data. An external model. A philosopher typically cares about levels of logic. Internal. Either one could easily be Lawful or Chaotic.) I also decide where do they get their energy. From internal reserves they spend during social encounters and need time to recharge? From exciting experiences and socialization? Or do they drain it from other people? Things like demeanor and sexuality and such are usually the kinds of things I decide last, but not always.

My starting points jump around. Usually, there is one idea I have that interests me. Like, 'wouldn't it be cool if someone thought or acted like X' and then I try and create a real person based on that. In D&D, that starting point might be something shallow like 'Ohh, wouldn't it be cool if you fought using blah-blah-blah technique?' but sometimes it is more psychological. Just depends.

I'll usually Myers-Briggs them, even though that is a very crude skeleton, too, and like all personality models filled with flaws and can't be trusted.

Anyway, I don't do this for every character and realize some or most people aren't willing to put this sort of time into crafting a character or else they prefer to figure this stuff out about their character as they play. In that case, using something like an alignment as a starting point makes sense as long as the player realizes it is only a skeleton to start at but eventually deviate from, not a shell to stay stuck inside.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-23, 05:35 AM
Well no because it's just a single line. You can't get an alignment from a sentance with zero context.

Well, that's debatable. I think many posters on here did a quite good job at it, once they took them at face value.



The first line I would say is likely either Lawful or Neutral of some sort. The viewpoint implies that they should be the ones in charge because they are smarter then everyone else.
I'll just leave that quote here:


I'd say it's fairly obvious that it's chaotic because of the individualistic worldview and the disdain for perceived "blind followers" inherent in that statement. Of course, again, they could very well be the words of a CN or CE person - but that's not the point. Point is, it can be just as easily argued that is CG more prone to acting like they are superior and that their way is right. I, actually, would argue thus. But then again, it's some of the people I play with, that may be at fault here.

There's actually nothing implied about thinking they should be in charge, as that person doesn't make a statement about leaders, but about followers, which he doesn't respect. I suppose you yourself are chaotic, so you probably don't want to see your comrades in alignment under that light, but that mindset is extremely chaotic and can be seen very often with people playing chaotic characters.



Second line I'd say is Lawful non-good. They are basically using the law to deny someone help, so I can't see how it would be good behavior in any case.
Well, they could be honest in what they're saying. Let's say they are a lawful good commander in a border town, and some person is begging them to help in a conflict on the other side of the border. But crossing the border and spilling blood there is not only against the law, but could also be seen very well as an incursion against the neighboring nation, which could lead to a long and bloody war.
...
Maybe I should have written "I'm very sorry ma'am, but that is not my jurisdiction.



But overall I do see your point. However you missed the key word of 'prone to' in my argument. These behaviors aren't exclusive to one alignment, or required. Just I think that these behavior happen more often on one side then the other.
Oh, I didn't miss it. I just wanted to show that those behaviours came very naturally for the other two alignments, as well. I don't agree that they happen more often on the one side than the other.
I have seen a lot more arrogant chaotic characters than lawful characters, who quite often seem, in fact, quite humble. They need to be, in fact, because they have superiors, who they respect. Chaotics feel they are above that kind of structure.

AMFV
2014-02-23, 06:50 AM
Which I wouldn't really argue against. Not meaningless, necessarily, but definitely superficial. The issue is when Law is supposed to represent both rigidity in thinking and a tendency towards making the world a more orderly place. When Chaos means both expression of individuality and freedom as well as trusting your gut and intuition. These concepts aren't very closely linked, in my opinion.

Intuition is explicitly tied with it though, and law is explicitely tied with a formalized world view.




A high ranking member of an anarchist group is just as likely to trust his gut as he is to be a highly manipulative, methodical person whose considered every aspect of his moral code and has a set in stone belief system. That belief system just happens to be one that concludes in total anarchy and his opinion of what liberty is. Where does that person fit in alignment?


They're lawful, they have a set of structured rules at to how they view world, Law and Chaos aren't necessarily linked to specific governmental outlooks, one could have a chaotic dictator (and there are dozens of them in hell) and one can have a lawful anarchist (as presented in your example). That's enough to suggest that the alignments aren't really tied with your views on government, but rather life philosophies.



Just like someone can never question the beliefs they grew up around, love order and structure, but make all their decisions based on gut instinct. In my experience, people who prefer not to think for themselves and stick to what they've been told tend to use their intuition and gut more than any other people I've met. It's just their instincts have been honed to stay in line with their rigid world view.

Then they're chaotic or lawful, if all of their decisions fit into a rigid code, lawful, if some of their gut decisions vary, then more towards chaotic.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-23, 07:08 PM
:smallconfused: I always thought we were neutral aligned as a species. But maybe that's my culturally insular experience. I've only been to North America and a few countries in Europe. Maybe people are more lawful in other nations of the world?



That sounds like most people I know, though it does not sound like the way most people I know would describe themselves. :smallwink:



When I DM, I insist that players pick an alignment, because it's an excellent roleplaying tool. I don't make them follow their alignment, nor do I allow other players to force another player to follow their alignment. Instead I appoint alignment pings when someone consistently displays behavior that fits outside of their alignment. Tools that help players step outside of "themselves" and get into their character are an important mechanic of traditional RPGs, imho.

Dump a random assortment of people on an alien planet (or just a deserted island) and they will form a society. One with laws and rules. Pretty much every successful society today is a Lawful one and I think the reason why there are so many Lawful societies is because humans are inherently Lawful.

AMFV
2014-02-23, 07:27 PM
Dump a random assortment of people on an alien planet (or just a deserted island) and they will form a society. One with laws and rules. Pretty much every successful society today is a Lawful one and I think the reason why there are so many Lawful societies is because humans are inherently Lawful.

You can have chaotic societies though, just having rules doesn't make a society lawful. Lawful societies are those where the laws are rigid and heavily enforced, chaotic societies are those where the laws tend to be vary based on situational factors. Most human societies fall in the middle, ergo, neutral.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-23, 07:47 PM
Dump a random assortment of people on an alien planet (or just a deserted island) and they will form a society. One with laws and rules. Pretty much every successful society today is a Lawful one and I think the reason why there are so many Lawful societies is because humans are inherently Lawful.

I think the reason why there are so many lawful societies is simply that they are more efficient and organized, therefore stronger at a larger scale. Neutral (or even chaotic) people might not like this, but they're not dumb, so they realise that guy talking about having structures, sharing work, setting up groups for looking for food, building shelter and so on might just have a point when confronted with an alien planet.

AMFV
2014-02-23, 07:50 PM
I think the reason why there are so many lawful societies is simply that they are more efficient and organized, therefore stronger at a larger scale. Neutral (or even chaotic) people might not like this, but they're not dumb, so they realise that guy talking about having structures, sharing work, setting up groups for looking for food, building shelter and so on might just have a point when confronted with an alien planet.

Again an informal organization of survivors is chaotic, because it's informal there are no written procedures and the laws are likely to shift as needs dictate.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-23, 07:52 PM
You can have chaotic societies though, just having rules doesn't make a society lawful. Lawful societies are those where the laws are rigid and heavily enforced, chaotic societies are those where the laws tend to be vary based on situational factors. Most human societies fall in the middle, ergo, neutral.

I disagree. I'd say a chaotic society is something where it's either an anarchist society, the government has collapsed, or there are no real laws or agreements, just one guy telling everyone else what to do. (and changing his mind whenever he wants)

Also generally if you break a law you tend to get penalized for doing so. Assuming you get caught.

Also look at how regimented our lives can be normally. You want to get a job? Apply by filling out a form, provide papers for banking information and identification, they'll check if you have broken the law. Then you sign a contract before you are considered employed.

Leaving the country? Better make sure your papers are in order again. Wait in lines to get your passport in order. Follow the rules in the air ports and customs.

Building a house? Land has to be zoned correctly, then surveyed to make sure it's all up to code, then surveyed again after the house is built. Not to mention the union rules and regulations, safety laws, design has to match and fall within a range of colors (yes there is a law against painting your house a bright neon pink).

Our lives are governed by laws, pretty much all over the place. But just because it's the norm for us doesn't make it any less Lawful.

aberratio ictus
2014-02-23, 08:11 PM
Again an informal organization of survivors is chaotic, because it's informal there are no written procedures and the laws are likely to shift as needs dictate.

Debatable.
In law philosophy there is a concept called "natural law", which does very well without positivism - at least, it should be regarded as lawful. In some modern judical systems, there is also a recognized "law of use", which doesn't have a written form either.

I think you're streching the chaotic concept too much if such a society counts as chaotic.

AMFV
2014-02-23, 08:38 PM
I disagree. I'd say a chaotic society is something where it's either an anarchist society, the government has collapsed, or there are no real laws or agreements, just one guy telling everyone else what to do. (and changing his mind whenever he wants)

Also generally if you break a law you tend to get penalized for doing so. Assuming you get caught.

Also look at how regimented our lives can be normally. You want to get a job? Apply by filling out a form, provide papers for banking information and identification, they'll check if you have broken the law. Then you sign a contract before you are considered employed.

Leaving the country? Better make sure your papers are in order again. Wait in lines to get your passport in order. Follow the rules in the air ports and customs.

Building a house? Land has to be zoned correctly, then surveyed to make sure it's all up to code, then surveyed again after the house is built. Not to mention the union rules and regulations, safety laws, design has to match and fall within a range of colors (yes there is a law against painting your house a bright neon pink).

Our lives are governed by laws, pretty much all over the place. But just because it's the norm for us doesn't make it any less Lawful.

Well this is NOT the case in D&D though, there are societies that have governments that are explicitly chaotic. To include the CG and CE planes. Since they have rules and are chaotic, then we can assume that chaos is not simply defined by the absence of rules.


Debatable.
In law philosophy there is a concept called "natural law", which does very well without positivism - at least, it should be regarded as lawful. In some modern judical systems, there is also a recognized "law of use", which doesn't have a written form either.

I think you're streching the chaotic concept too much if such a society counts as chaotic.

But that's a real world example. Furthermore as you'll see in D&D there are chaotic societies with formal leadership and rules. If chaos only counts as anarchy that could not be the case.

Edit: Even the Slaadi have a hierarchy while it's rather haphazard it exists, so clearly a society is not the essence of law. It's not the presence of rules or society but rather the rigidity of that society or those laws.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-23, 08:43 PM
Well this is NOT the case in D&D though, there are societies that have governments that are explicitly chaotic. To include the CG and CE planes. Since they have rules and are chaotic, then we can assume that chaos is not simply defined by the absence of rules.



But that's a real world example. Furthermore as you'll see in D&D there are chaotic societies with formal leadership and rules. If chaos only counts as anarchy that could not be the case.

Can you give me an example of one (and a link/write out of to a description of the society)

because the only chaotic societies that spring to mind are orc/goblins 'do whatever the strongest guy' says model.

AMFV
2014-02-23, 08:50 PM
Can you give me an example of one (and a link/write out of to a description of the society)

because the only chaotic societies that spring to mind are orc/goblins 'do whatever the strongest guy' says model.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Evermeet

There's at least one. There are others as well. For example Slaadi (who have a hierarchy as per MM in 3.5), the CG regions of heaven, and the Abyss which certainly have dictatorships.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-23, 09:07 PM
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Evermeet

There's at least one. There are others as well. For example Slaadi (who have a hierarchy as per MM in 3.5), the CG regions of heaven, and the Abyss which certainly have dictatorships.

...I fail to see how that government is any more Chaotic then say the Dwarf kings of Mithril Hall or the Lords of Waterdeep. I mean it's a simply monarchy with a ruling council. How is it in anyway chaotic?

The Abyss dictatorships are very much 'do whatever the big guy wants' level of government. There is no law beyond that one individual's desires. I don't know much about the Slaad beyond that they are giant frogs that mess **** up. And to my understanding there isn't really any sort of government in the CG regions of heaven. It's basically an anarchist's paradise where everyone is nice and there is no need for law because everyone treats each other nicely.

AMFV
2014-02-23, 09:14 PM
...I fail to see how that government is any more Chaotic then say the Dwarf kings of Mithril Hall or the Lords of Waterdeep. I mean it's a simply monarchy with a ruling council. How is it in anyway chaotic?

The Abyss dictatorships are very much 'do whatever the big guy wants' level of government. There is no law beyond that one individual's desires. I don't know much about the Slaad beyond that they are giant frogs that mess **** up. And to my understanding there isn't really any sort of government in the CG regions of heaven. It's basically an anarchist's paradise where everyone is nice and there is no need for law because everyone treats each other nicely.

There are laws in the CG portions of heaven, they have rulers, which are explicitly put in the BOED. And in the sections on them in AD&D. The point is that if those are chaotic, then by definition chaos is at least for the most part independent of society.

Since the RAW examples exist in various societies, we must assume that it's not the actual society but how it is enforced. The mentality behind it.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-23, 09:41 PM
There are laws in the CG portions of heaven, they have rulers, which are explicitly put in the BOED. And in the sections on them in AD&D. The point is that if those are chaotic, then by definition chaos is at least for the most part independent of society.

Since the RAW examples exist in various societies, we must assume that it's not the actual society but how it is enforced. The mentality behind it.

Seems to be an arbitrary distinction to me and that there really isn't a difference between a lawful and chaotic society.

AMFV
2014-02-23, 09:49 PM
Seems to be an arbitrary distinction to me and that there really isn't a difference between a lawful and chaotic society.

It's all about the mentality, for example a lawful society might have laws against murder. A chaotic one would have the same laws. But if somebody murders somebody in a lawful society, they'd punish them, no questions asked, because for them justice and morality are absolute. A chaotic society, might ask why, and the punishment would vary depending on the circumstances. Most societies are some where in between.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-24, 01:28 AM
It's all about the mentality, for example a lawful society might have laws against murder. A chaotic one would have the same laws. But if somebody murders somebody in a lawful society, they'd punish them, no questions asked, because for them justice and morality are absolute. A chaotic society, might ask why, and the punishment would vary depending on the circumstances. Most societies are some where in between.

While I suppose that's a valid interpretation, it certainly isn't a universal one.

I mean look at Azure City from OotS. It's a Lawful Good society headed by Paladins no less. And crimes, even incredibly important crimes, are still done by a trial basis where each point of view is argued. They don't just skip straight to the punishment, and even then the punishments are handed down on a situational basis.


For what a Chaotic Good (or just Chaotic) kingdom would be like, I'd point to the Fae Kingdom from Dan and Mab's Furry Adventure. The laws don't matter, basically at all. In fact the whole situation is treated like a joke. No one really enforces the laws either.

AMFV
2014-02-24, 01:33 AM
While I suppose that's a valid interpretation, it certainly isn't a universal one.

I mean look at Azure City from OotS. It's a Lawful Good society headed by Paladins no less. And crimes, even incredibly important crimes, are still done by a trial basis where each point of view is argued. They don't just skip straight to the punishment, and even then the punishments are handed down on a situational basis.

But the laws, and the circumstances are stated beforehand, any case where you adjust for circumstances in ways that were not anticipated are slightly less lawful, but since Azure City isn't the plane of law it doesn't work like that.



For what a Chaotic Good (or just Chaotic) kingdom would be like, I'd point to the Fae Kingdom from Dan and Mab's Furry Adventure. The laws don't matter, basically at all. In fact the whole situation is treated like a joke. No one really enforces the laws either.

And that's one sort of chaotic scenario, but a complex honor society, like the fictional old west would have a chaotic element, even though they have many situations that can result in a death penalty being enacted by vigilantes, is also a chaotic society, and to boot a functioning chaotic society.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-24, 04:18 AM
But the laws, and the circumstances are stated beforehand, any case where you adjust for circumstances in ways that were not anticipated are slightly less lawful, but since Azure City isn't the plane of law it doesn't work like that.



And that's one sort of chaotic scenario, but a complex honor society, like the fictional old west would have a chaotic element, even though they have many situations that can result in a death penalty being enacted by vigilantes, is also a chaotic society, and to boot a functioning chaotic society.

Alright then, same comic when Roy is being judged by the Diva, a being of law and good. Many of Roy's 'sins' are forgiven due to circumstantial stuff such as the the gifts would have been blown up anyways, Belkar's evil crimes are less with me around even though he's doing them in my name, and simply not being able to remember that he dangled the oracle out of the window.


Sure I'll accept that the Old West is another Chaotic society (well the fictional old west presented. I'm not sure about the reality because I don't study history.)

But while there are laws, those laws are barely enforced. It's either vigilante justice, mod justice, or just anyone acting more or less how they please.

AMFV
2014-02-24, 04:46 AM
Alright then, same comic when Roy is being judged by the Diva, a being of law and good. Many of Roy's 'sins' are forgiven due to circumstantial stuff such as the the gifts would have been blown up anyways, Belkar's evil crimes are less with me around even though he's doing them in my name, and simply not being able to remember that he dangled the oracle out of the window.

It is important to remember that the OOTS interpretation of the alignments isn't always RAW either, while they can be interesting they are not necessarily accurate. Furthermore the lawful good archons (the real ones) were extremely peeved about that, suggesting that it may have been more bending the law.



Sure I'll accept that the Old West is another Chaotic society (well the fictional old west presented. I'm not sure about the reality because I don't study history.)

But while there are laws, those laws are barely enforced. It's either vigilante justice, mod justice, or just anyone acting more or less how they please.

But those laws are enforced, just not by those in an official capacity, and there are certainly customs that may or may not be enforced, the whole thing is based on a much more gut based system. It is important to note that I'm discussing the fictional old west, since the real one was very different, also the real old west would be outside the scope of this forum.

Forum Explorer
2014-02-24, 04:04 PM
It is important to remember that the OOTS interpretation of the alignments isn't always RAW either, while they can be interesting they are not necessarily accurate. Furthermore the lawful good archons (the real ones) were extremely peeved about that, suggesting that it may have been more bending the law.



But those laws are enforced, just not by those in an official capacity, and there are certainly customs that may or may not be enforced, the whole thing is based on a much more gut based system. It is important to note that I'm discussing the fictional old west, since the real one was very different, also the real old west would be outside the scope of this forum.

However there is nothing in RAW that makes OotS interpretation false.


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.


"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.

Nothing in that says that the punishment for breaking a law is always the same, lacks a trial, or doesn't take circumstances into account. That's all your personal interpretation.


Wild West fiction is a wide genre. I'd be hesitant to slap a label of 'this is how their governments are always presented' because I'm pretty sure you can find an exception, one way or the other.

AMFV
2014-02-24, 09:39 PM
However there is nothing in RAW that makes OotS interpretation false.

Yes, but there's also nothing that make the actions of the father who is being deceptive, lying, and impersonating a government official lawful.

Even when Roy is later being judged, it's pretty much a heavy rules type deal, whereas a chaotic system would likely be less mired in rules, but would still have them.




Nothing in that says that the punishment for breaking a law is always the same, lacks a trial, or doesn't take circumstances into account. That's all your personal interpretation.


Wild West fiction is a wide genre. I'd be hesitant to slap a label of 'this is how their governments are always presented' because I'm pretty sure you can find an exception, one way or the other.

Yes you can find an exception, but since it is a genre, there are accepted genre conventions which are what I was discussing in the first place. Never did I say, in ALL westerns, I said "in the fictional wild west", which was intended to convey that in standard genre Western fiction there is a typical romanticization of vigilantism, of "solving your own problems' and of maverick law enforcement actions. It's why "Cowboy Cop" has come to mean what it does.

illyahr
2014-02-25, 04:43 PM
I think the confusion here is based on the interpretation of "Lawful" you use. It doesn't really convey anything helpful. I prefer to use the term "Orderly" instead. It implies discipline and structure, rather than adherence to a set of laws.

The fictional Wild West would be an example of a Chaotic society. There were no official rules as such, just a series of actions that were understood to not be tolerated.

Millennium
2014-02-27, 02:30 PM
because the only chaotic societies that spring to mind are orc/goblins 'do whatever the strongest guy' says model.
That's not a Chaotic society; that's anarchy. There's a difference: in particular, anarchy tends to only last long enough for some strong ruthless guy to grab enough de facto power, and then it takes a hard turn toward LE.

Most Chaotic societies recognize a need for some law, if only to prevent this from happening. But they tend to be very picky about what laws they enact, sometimes spending as much time restricting the government as they spend actually governing their citizens. The legal code is often kept as simple and elegant as possible, while maintaining flexibility. The solution to handling strange corner cases is to give judges broad interpretive powers, rather than trying to carve out exceptions for every little thing. Judges, for their part, are trusted to use common sense most of the time.

For an interesting historical example, consider the earliest years of the United States. The original government, under the Articles of Confederation, put very little power in the hands of the federal government itself, leaving almost everything to the states, and it proved itself to be unworkably-Chaotic within a decade. The Constitution, which replaced it, still had undeniably Chaotic roots, but shifted things somewhat toward Law in an attempt to make something that actually functioned.

Though if you really want a strong example of CG-gone-dark, check out the early years of the French Revolution. Robespierre's influence wasn't called the "Reign of Terror" for nothing. The whole Revolution was founded on principles that are undeniably CG, but in its rush to expunge the oppression of the old system, it created its own unique style of oppression, very different from the sort Law tends to prefer but no less effective.