PDA

View Full Version : Defining "alignment"



tanjun2
2007-03-27, 02:32 AM
Excuse the n00bish question, but I've been wondering this for a while now since I've read the OotS comics.

What do the alignments mean?

I mean, it's fairly obvious that good is good, bad is bad, and neutral are generally NPCs, but then there's "chaotic" and "lawful" that I don't understand...

I looked up the "Common Acronyms, Abbrevations, and Terms thread," (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512) but it only lists them, so...

Think you guys can help explain this to me, please?

Thanks in advanced~

Dhavaer
2007-03-27, 02:40 AM
There's no real agreed upon definition for Law and Chaos.

As I see it, Law sees communal wisdom as greater than individual energy. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and each part has to serve its purpose to keep it that way. Lawful people tend to like things pre-prepared, set out and understood by everyone involved.

Chaos sees individual freedom as greater than communal productivity. People can't reach their full potential when bound by laws and rules, so why bother with them as anything more then guidelines and recommendations? Chaotic people like to take each situation on its own, and let people do what's right for them.

Jannex
2007-03-27, 02:53 AM
I'm probably going to get ninja'ed in mid-explanation on this, since I tend to be long-winded, but here goes...

D&D uses the Alignment system to describe characters' personality, morality, and ethics (with varying degrees of usefulness, depending on who you ask); alignment also has mechanical effects vis-a-vis magic.

There are two dimensions of alignment: the Good-Evil axis, and the Law-Chaos axis. Between each of these extremes is Neutrality. The way this grids out, one can be any of nine discrete alignments--

Lawful Good--Neutral Good--Chaotic Good
.....|....................|....................|
Lawful Neutral--True Neutral--Chaotic Neutral
.....|....................|...................|
Lawful Evil -- Neutral Evil -- Chaotic Evil

"Good" encompasses very much what it sounds like: altruism, respect for life, generosity, etc.
"Evil" also describes very much what you'd expect: sadism, selfishness, cruelty, ruthlessness, etc.
"Neutrality" on the Good-Evil axis describes someone who generally ascribes to the accepted values of society, but won't go out of his way to uphold them.

Law and Chaos are slightly more complex and less well-defined. I'll give it a shot, though.

"Lawful" encompasses the values of reliability, honor, and tradition. A lawful person typically has a set of standards to which he holds himself.
"Chaotic" describes a more impulsive attitude, usually accompanied by spontanaety, flexibility, and a belief in the importance of personal freedom and choice. A chaotic person may not be much of a "planner," or he may put a great deal of emphasis on individual agency.
"Neutrality" on the Law-Chaos axis generally describes someone who is neither dogmatic nor impulsive, and allows the situation he finds himself in to dictate the best approach. He is probably neither an idealogue nor an iconoclast.

Jack Mann
2007-03-27, 03:32 AM
Heck, there's even a lot of disagreement on good and evil.

According to the group I was playing with, finding a random stranger, stealing their soul, and selling it to a devil was a neutral act.

Dhavaer
2007-03-27, 03:34 AM
Heck, there's even a lot of disagreement on good and evil.

According to the group I was playing with, finding a random stranger, stealing their soul, and selling it to a devil was a neutral act.

What was their reasoning?

Jannex
2007-03-27, 03:42 AM
Heck, there's even a lot of disagreement on good and evil.

According to the group I was playing with, finding a random stranger, stealing their soul, and selling it to a devil was a neutral act.

*blink*

...Buh?

Jack Mann
2007-03-27, 03:42 AM
Specifically, they argued it was chaotic neutral, on the basis that "chaotic neutral characters are always in it for themselves, and don't care about others."

I'm not certain they ever really read through the alignment section.

Dhavaer
2007-03-27, 03:48 AM
Sounds more like Neutral Evil to me. Or Lawful Evil, assuming they were using Devil as the specific term.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-03-27, 03:51 AM
The official descriptions of the nine alignments can be read here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment).

Too early in the morning to discuss them subjectively, but trust me, alignment debates are just as rampant in this forum as they are in the OotS section about Miko and Belkar.

Jack Mann
2007-03-27, 03:55 AM
It was a specific situation. We were stuck in Sigil, which the DM had changed so it was slowly rotting, the market closed, and all the portals closed. The only way out was through a puzzlebox in the hands of a devil. It wanted a soul in return for it. I refused, but two of the others (both playing chaotic neutral characters) tried to talk me into it. The DM backed them up.

In the end, the chaotic good pixie pickpocketed it.

The Prince of Cats
2007-03-27, 04:08 AM
My take on neutrality was that you generally are not a bad person, you try to be good, but you don't try too hard. All three alignments will steal an apple or bread if they are very hungry; a good person will only do it from necessity and hate doing it, a neutral person will rationalise it as a necessity and prefer not to do it, an evil person will not even have to rationalise it and won't really care much.

I have seen so many views of the law-chaos axis. My take is that 'law' refers to their own personal rules. Lawful evil (to me) is not always working within the bounds of the law but they have their boundaries; a LE assassin might refuse to kill unless paid or provoked but will never baulk at killing once paid, since it is not really their place to question it. Others might argue that LE is being evil but working within the law so as to be untouchable. A good example might be a tax-collector who likes torturing non-paying serfs in the town square 'as an example to others'.

Krellen
2007-03-27, 09:07 AM
Don't listen to us. We're all a bunch of opinionated folks that have all made up our minds on alignment already. Go have a look for yourself (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) at the rules and draw your own conclusions. They're free; you're not stealing anything here. That's the beauty of the SRD.

Starbuck_II
2007-03-27, 09:32 AM
It was a specific situation. We were stuck in Sigil, which the DM had changed so it was slowly rotting, the market closed, and all the portals closed. The only way out was through a puzzlebox in the hands of a devil. It wanted a soul in return for it. I refused, but two of the others (both playing chaotic neutral characters) tried to talk me into it. The DM backed them up.

In the end, the chaotic good pixie pickpocketed it.
See, Chaotic Nuetral means they are always in it for themselves. But most ikely they do as much good as evil (50% probablilty) so they stay neurtal.

Stealing somes soul is chaotic, but selling to a devil is evil (since soul will be tortured or hurt). One time offense won't change alignment...but I hope your character didn't trust him for a while.

Tormsskull
2007-03-27, 09:48 AM
Don't listen to us. We're all a bunch of opinionated folks that have all made up our minds on alignment already. Go have a look for yourself (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) at the rules and draw your own conclusions.

This is the best answer I've ever seen to an alignment question. Alignment threads never seem to actually do any good, they just end up confusing/angering people in the end.

As a D&D player your best bet is to do exactly as Krellen suggested: read the rules, extract from them what YOU think they mean, and then go forward.

Krellen
2007-03-27, 10:02 AM
This is the best answer I've ever seen to an alignment question. Alignment threads never seem to actually do any good, they just end up confusing/angering people in the end.
I still participate in them. Debating is fun! :smallbiggrin:

hewhosaysfish
2007-03-27, 10:02 AM
See, Chaotic Nuetral means they are always in it for themselves. But most ikely they do as much good as evil (50% probablilty) so they stay neurtal.

Really? I always felt that the whole "Feed one starving orphan, stab another one in the head" attitude was evil. LE if they're deliberately trying to balance it, CE if their just flipping a coin to decide whether they'll be 'good' or 'evil' that day.

Logos7
2007-03-27, 10:09 AM
The Way I've Always used it myself is if your predictable

Your Lawful

If your Not

Your Chaotic

If you stab hurt maim punish carry grudges etc

Your Evil

If you only fight in the defence of your life or the immediate lifes of other's heal random people forgive your enemies

Your Good

and if your sometimes opposites your Neutral ( Althought wether you meantn to be or not is another question.

of course i'm sure their's lots of people who would disagree with me, talking about conseqences and codes and all that. But i thinik their over complicating the matter, and wrong far more often than the obvious assignment.

Of course their's still people out their who think that paladin's should slay their enemies once they surrender ( Otherwise they'd be responcible for every single evil act they later did) and that Judge Death is True Neutral despite his killing of everyone for some imaginary crime.

you can rationalize and argue for anything, I suggest you go with the obvious.

Logos

Piccamo
2007-03-27, 10:10 AM
I'm of the opinion:
On the good - evil axis Evil means putting your own needs, goals, and desires before others; Neutral means putting your needs and some goals, but not desires, before others, while Good means putting others' needs before their own needs, goals, and desires.

On the law - chaos axis Law should be renamed Order. It is the way in which you go about your needs, goals and desires. A lawful person will see laws, organizations, and bureaucracy as tools to help him accomplish whatever he's set out to do. A neutral person may use the above, but can just as easily work against it when necessary. Finally, a chaotic person will work around the above, seeing them more as annoyances than tools.

Even evil doesn't necessarily mean going out of your way to bring harm to others, just that you don't mind doing so to accomplish your task. TheOOB had a good post about alignments a while back, but I can't find the thread.

the_tick_rules
2007-03-27, 10:15 AM
CN in my mind is the most abused alignment. I can't count the number of people who act like it means they can do anything. Steal from the orphanage to buy supplies, kill that man in the alley cause he has a better sword than me, hey I'm CN i can do anything wheee!!! CN means you are an indivualist and a free-spirit, on a psycho.

Well to get on topic lawful to me means you have a code to which you adhere. You respect this code and try your best to follow it. This is not to say chaotic people are unpricipled and never follow any rules. They just see the rules as limiting and situations may require more indivdual action.

headwarpage
2007-03-27, 11:02 AM
First, I agree that the alignments can mean far too many things and tend to lead to arguments, so you should decide for yourself what they mean.

Second, I love alignment debates. They're just fun.

I agree that CN is horribly, horribly abused. All it means is that you are neither good nor evil, and you tend to have a chaotic nature (whatever that actually means). It doesn't mean you're a psycho, or that you don't need a reason for your actions. But to me, it's only marginally worse than when people play LN as blindly following the letter of the law at all times.

I also think that the law-chaos axis is really poorly presented. Some people look at it in terms of the laws of the land. Other people think of it as being related to a personal code. Still others think of it in more sociological terms. Personally, I think it all comes down to order. Lawful people believe that the world is (or should be, anyway) an ordered, logical place. This can apply to everything from their own mind, to a kingdom, to the multiverse in general. To them, there should be a system of some sort. That doesn't mean that they're under any obligation to support existing systems if those aren't the kind of systems they want to see, it just means that they feel like there's an inherent value to having things organized.

Chaotic characters, on the other hand, don't have any use for order. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're all anarchists, but they don't have any allegiance to the system for the system's sake. They're less likely to organize their minds or their lives, though they might in many ways. But mostly, they just don't feel like there's any inherent value to having things organized. If the system works, fine. If it doesn't work, ignore it or throw it out.

Krellen
2007-03-27, 11:13 AM
If you want to do whatever you want without alignment problems, you need to be Chaotic Evil. That's the only alignment that can get away with anything.

Also, Law and Chaos are fairly well defined. It's just that everyone seems to overlook the definitions. Lawful includes several very specific examples of behaviour; without at least most of those, you can't be Lawful.

headwarpage
2007-03-27, 11:21 AM
If you want to do whatever you want without alignment problems, you need to be Chaotic Evil. That's the only alignment that can get away with anything.

Yes, but it's annoying when people play it as Stupid Evil. Sure, you can do anything within the alignment, but unless your Int is 3, you probably know better.


Also, Law and Chaos are fairly well defined. It's just that everyone seems to overlook the definitions. Lawful includes several very specific examples of behaviour; without at least most of those, you can't be Lawful.

Frankly, I don't trust WotC to define my alignments for me. I've read BoED and BoVD. Besides, I enjoy coming up with these things on my own.

Diggorian
2007-03-27, 11:39 AM
Agreed. The definitions provided in the SRD links and PHB itself are sufficient to answer the OP's question.

Another common misreading I find is the "Alignment Hierarchy" where the Lawfuls are seen as more good than their Neutral counterparts and Chaotics more evil than them. My CG characters that dont approve of torture get funny looks.

"What are ya? A Paladin."
"Well ... I'm as good as one."
"You're a Chaotic guy ... with a code?"
"No, just not cruel."

The argument begins.

tanjun2
2007-03-28, 12:13 AM
Firstly, I have to say that this is THE most AWESOME and friendliest forum I have EVER been on. You guys rock~!

Thanks much everyone for the immediate answers -- and thank you, Dhaver, for jumping on it first. ^^

I guess this question comes up more often than I thought...

Now the next thing I'm gonna do is re-read the comics and plot out who says they're what exactly -- I could look at the linked thread, but I want to find out on my own. ^^

Thanks again~

PnP Fan
2007-03-28, 12:52 AM
There are no n00bish questions. Only n00bs. ;-)
Seriously though, I promise you, these questions have all been asked before, and answered differently by people playing the game over the last 30 years.
Go read the source document, decide for yourself, work it out with your game group, and move on.

Dhavaer
2007-03-28, 03:29 AM
Thanks much everyone for the immediate answers -- and thank you, Dhaver, for jumping on it first. ^^

You're welcome. You're also dead, for misspelling my name, but no less welcome because of it.

*sharpens murderin' axe*

tanjun2
2007-03-28, 04:43 PM
Oo;;

Dhavaer ^^;;

... I'm so dead. x_x


Go read the source document, decide for yourself, work it out with your game group, and move on.

See, the thing is, I don't play... ^^;;

*goes off to re-read the comics before starting hw*

martyboy74
2007-03-28, 04:50 PM
There are no n00bish questions. Only n00bs. ;-)
http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/cluelessness.jpg


As I see it, Law sees communal wisdom as greater than individual energy. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and each part has to serve its purpose to keep it that way. Lawful people tend to like things pre-prepared, set out and understood by everyone involved.


So what would a Lawful neutral person think about Wikipedia? You say that communal wisdom is greater than individual energy, then say that each group has to do its part.

Dhavaer
2007-03-28, 04:59 PM
So what would a Lawful neutral person think about Wikipedia? You say that communal wisdom is greater than individual energy, then say that each group has to do its part.

They might say it doesn't have enough checks and balances. I don't really know enough about Wikipedia to answer that.