Rules are for Jerks: A Chaotic Good Alignment Handbook

[ThinkMinty]

I’m writing this largely from a Chaotic Good perspective. Contains foul language, because why the **** not? Viewer discretion is discouraged, but to each their own.

http://i.imgur.com/dDNtTCR.jpg
Rules are for Jerks: A Chaotic Good Alignment Handbook

Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one.


I. Introduction
A fair number of people don’t quite grok Chaotic Good, since the idea of thinking for yourself while being a good person is apparently confusing. This guide seeks to liberate your mind from those terrible notions. Handbooks are always handy, that’s why they’re called handbooks. A previous alignment guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?446414-No-Limits-No-Regrets-A-guide-to-the-Chaotic-Evil-alignment) put me in the mood to write up another one, this time about Chaotic Good. Rollplay gets talked about a lot, but they’re called roleplaying games for a reason.


http://i.imgur.com/DXPJkId.gif
II. What is Chaotic Good?


A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

That’s a pretty good point to start from; Chaotic Good, even. A Chaotic Good character acts on their conscience without regards to what others think, or what they were supposed to do.

Here’s something every Chaotic Good character is probably going to have:

A Disregard for the Rules!
A Chaotic Good does not think about rules before doing...pretty much anything. You don’t care about what other people think, especially if they’re powerful. You aren’t going to take orders, at most you’re going to take suggestions as long as they grok with what you think is a good idea at the time. Chaotic Characters are freewheeling and don’t give a **** what The Man wants them to do. Chaotic characters are going to make their own decisions, and Chaotic Good characters are going to try their hardest to do right by themselves and others. You’re helping the orphans find their puppy because they like their puppy and would be sad little orphans without their puppy and it’s the right thing to do, not because someone lazy and powerful told you to.

A Concern for Others!
A Chaotic Good character, while somewhat selfish, has a genuine and hefty concern for other people’s well-being. When you find out that the schoolyard bully’s dad went out for cigarettes out one day and never came back, you’re going to feel bad for her, even if you kicked her ass that morning for tripping the blind kid. Chaotic Good characters are bighearted softies, even if they won’t admit it.

Disdain for Repression!
A Chaotic Good character likes a world that changes for the better, and has little care for traditions, especially traditions that deny people the freedom to seek happiness as they see fit. Chaotic Good characters want to pull the stick out of the ass of society, get everyone to bust loose and enjoy themselves while they can.

Freedom!
Chaotic Good characters are always free, at least in their heads and in their hearts. A Chaotic Good character values their freedom as they value their life. They can enslave you, tie you down and beat you senseless, but they can’t take your freedom away. You’ll always have that.
---
Now Open To The Public!

[ThinkMinty]

III. Archetypes of Chaotic Good

There’s a lot more to being chaotic good than putting a feather in your cap, picking up a bow, and shooting tyrants in the face so you can give their ill-gotten gold and breads to the poor. It’s fun, but every Chaotic Good character is an individual with their own thoughts, feelings, and approach. However, there are some recurring patterns and themes to all that delightful disorderly conduct. Some (but not all) of these patterns are laid out below for your consideration.

...I’ll be using female pronouns to describe each archetype, for simplicity’s sake.


http://i.imgur.com/Zv5nHVo.jpg

The Fool

Why am I sticky and naked? Did I miss something fun?
The fool has a fundamentally good heart and a head full of of something other than sense. The fool is not stupid, she is merely ignorant; the dumb fool doesn’t know any better, nor do she need to. Lady Luck seems to have a girlcrush on the fool, and bestows her blessing to keep her kindhearted eye candy out of harm’s way. The fool hasn’t learned some of the most basic rules that others follow, because she’s never had to. Her rebellion stems more from ignorance than outright disagreement, she’s a force majeure for freedom and virtue just the same.

Most Chaotic Good characters begin life this way. Many of them leave it behind at some point growing up; this archetype describes those who don’t.

The Fool: Elan (Order of the Stick), Philip J. Fry (Futurama), Mindy (Animaniacs; Buttons and Mindy shorts), Spongebob Squarepants.



http://i.imgur.com/AfUmcOW.jpg
The Sour Lemon


Sometimes cynicism is the last refuge of the idealist.

The Sour Lemon is the classic cynical Chaotic Good character; cynical might not be the best word, however. The Sour Lemon isn’t so much a cynic as a thoroughly and frequently disappointed optimist. At some point along the way, something terrible happened along and put its big clomping boot on their neck; it could be a single bad night in an alley, it could be an entire childhood full of abuse and neglect. This event ripped away her optimism and left the Sour Lemon raw, exposed to the capricious cruelty of reality. The Sour Lemon isn’t going to give up, however. She’s quick to help, always willing to try even if it won’t make one bit of difference. The Sour Lemon is stubborn to a frightening, self-destructive degree. The Sour Lemon, more than all the others, is defiant to the bitter end.

Examples: Sour Lemon: Homura Akemi (Puella Magi Madoka Magica), Dr. Perry Cox (Scrubs), Dr. Greg House (House), Harry Dresden (The Dresden Files)



http://i.imgur.com/EhEBJPY.jpg
The Sunflower


Today is always the most enjoyable day.

The Sunflower is bright-hearted, freespirited, and above all, plucky. She’s liberated in her thoughts and deeds, sunshine and freedom follow her wherever she goes. She’s cheerful to a fault, and has a boundless, manic energy. The Sunflower is happy, and wants to share that happiness with everyone so everyone can feel as fluttery and wonderful as she does. She averts the status quo for its own sake, mostly because it’s boring. Her head frequently wanders into the clouds, but that’s because clouds are more interesting and don’t tell her what to do or who to be. While her moods may be quite fickle and at times volatile, she makes the world a sunnier place just by stopping by.

Examples: Mabel Pines (Gravity Falls), Aquaman (Batman: The Brave and the Bold), Pinkie Pie (My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic), The Tick



http://i.imgur.com/K36DU9k.jpg
La Résistance, aka The Revolutionary


The first duty of a revolutionist is to get away with it.

The Revolutionary is a Chaotic Good character with her goal summed up with five simple words from a cartoon that’s pretty much Chaotic Good: the Series: “Row row, fight the power!”[link to the song]. While all Chaotic Good characters are free themselves, the Revolutionary will set you free, come hell or high water. She doesn’t like the present order, and has some very specific reasons why. Depending on the context, she can be either very helpful, or very preachy.

Examples: Huey Freeman (The Boondocks), The Resisty (Invader Zim), Orange County Liberation Front (The Venture Bros.)



http://i.imgur.com/Tu0ZMV0.gif
The Berserker


Since when is dying finishing a battle? Well.. ain't that just running away, huh?!

When the Blue Fairy said “Let your conscience be your guide”, she listened. With a good heart and boiling blood, the Berserker lashes out at injustice with a frenzied and righteous anger. The Berserker is full of passion and always itching to do some good, especially if it’s challenging or hands-on. While a Berserker isn’t stupid, they’ll dive right in the second they smell a problem, without planning ahead. This is both awesome, and kinda dangerous. Expect a lot of property damage, but a lot of chaotic good times.

Examples: Coop (Megas XLR), Ryuko Matoi (Kill La Kill), Natsu Dragneel (Fairy Tail)



http://i.imgur.com/jupCYr5.jpg
The Rascal


Ain’t I a stinker?

The Rascal is one of, if not the oldest Chaotic Good archetype. Rascals behave in defiance and disregard of accepted convention and behavior. They’ll outfox authority figures at every turn, or at least try their hardest to. If there’s a stick up someone’s ass, or a boot on their neck, she’ll be there to unplug that bull****. Rascals love pranks, and there’s a mischievous undercurrent to what they do, but their heart is in the right place...often enough.

Examples: Br’er’ Rabbit, Tom Sawyer, Prometheus, Bugs Bunny.



http://i.imgur.com/GkgvNId.jpg
The Bully-Killer


As a spy, it doesn't matter if you're helping rebel forces fight off a dictator or giving combat tips to a third-grader. There's nothing like helping the little guy kick some bully's ass.

The Bully-Killer is a Chaotic Good character with an acute hatred for bullies, likely from learned experience. The strong preying on the vulnerable offends her down to the bone, especially when the bully gets away with it. One of the big problems with bullies is that Lawful systems tend to tacitly encourage bullies by giving acceptable targets in those who are unable, unwilling, or unallowed to fight back. Her combined good nature and disregard for authority lead the Bully-Killer to do something she most likely wishes someone had done for her once: fight back. The Bully-Killer cuts tyrants of any size down, and does so gladly.

Examples: Matilda Wormwood (Matilda), Monkey D. Luffy (One Piece), Bastian (The Neverending Story)


http://i.imgur.com/5M0mMYL.gif
The Social Bandit


It ain't what you takin', it's who you takin' it from.
The hands-down, first-thought iconic archetype of all that is Chaotic and Good. The social bandit steals from those who have it coming in order to help the downtrodden. Taking opulent wealth from those who don't deserve it and then helping those who need it are equally important to the archetype; the second half is how you tell the difference between the real deal and someone trying to cash in on how much people like the freedom and goodness a genuine Social Bandit provides. This archetype is quite popular during economic downturns.

Bonus points if you’re using arrows, partial credit if you’re using a tommygun.

Examples: Robin Hood, Aladdin (Disney), Omar Little (The Wire), John Dillinger...allegedly.

[ThinkMinty]

IV. Motivation!

...why not?

You don’t have to explain why; others have to explain why not.


V. What Makes Chaotic Good?

Nice to the Downtrodden; Irreverent of the Powerful
A Chaotic Good character, naturally, considers everyone else in the whole wide world and beyond their equal; no one is above or below them. The Chaotic Good character is nice to the downtrodden in part because they see no reason not to be, and those less fortunate deserve their sympathy. The very same equalizing attitude is what makes Chaotic Good characters irreverent of powerful people, especially those who insist on being revered without question. A Chaotic Good character isn’t going to treat them like they’re better than anyone else, because frankly they’re not, and someone really should tell them that before anyone gets hurt. This is why Chaotic Good characters mouth off to monarchs so much.

Abolitionism
A Chaotic Good character abhors slavery; abolitionism is a prerequisite of this alignment. Every good-aligned character abhors slavery (Cityscape, Page 148. Yes, it's RAW.), Chaotic Good is the most likely of the Goods to free slaves without thinking about consequences. You have permission (and an obligation, to be honest) to go all-out John Brown on any slave auction you come across ...not that you needed it. The practice of slavery goes against everything a Chaotic Good character believes in; no exceptions.


---
There's more to it than that, will add as needed and/or noticed.

[ThinkMinty]

VI. Things to Remember

Authority =/= the Government
There are other forms of tyranny besides governments, and they’re not any better. A Chaotic Good character isn’t going to look the other way just because a merchant, company, church, cartel, thieves’ guild, or other organization is oppressing people instead of a state. If you really mean it, it doesn’t matter what kind of boot is stepping on people’s necks, the boot’s gotta go.

The Conflict Between Chaos and Order
There is a conflict between Chaos and Order, and it does in fact matter as much in the long term as the conflict between Good and Evil. If you need to see this explored as a primary conflict in some fiction, watch a whole lot of One Piece. There’s pirates, you’ll have fun.


---
More to come as more of these come up.

[ThinkMinty]

VII. Disorganized Religion

Organized religion tends to be...forced, let’s be honest for a moment. Chaotic Good characters aren’t going to join a religion just because someone told them to, especially if someone dragged them kicking and screaming to the temple as a child. Chaotic Good characters are quite likely to be secular in their outlook, knowing that dogmatism and rigidity can carve out a hole in people’s hearts where morality would go otherwise. Obedience is a worse substitute for morality than margarine is for butter.

For these sorts of reasons, Chaotic Good characters aren’t as likely to be particularly devout, with plenty of outright atheists.

However, Chaotic Good religion does...exist. It’s more about following an example and living your conscience than it is adhering to an inflexible divine code you’re not allowed to question or mock. A Chaotic Good character isn’t going to have a dogmatic view of their religion, and might not even believe their god exists, they’re just following an example of what they think is right.


Chaotic Good Deities & Figures of Example

Dungeons & Dragons:
Corellon Larethian (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Corellon), Creator of the Elves
Kord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kord_(Greyhawk)), the Brawler

Pathfinder:
Cayden Caeilean (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Cayden_Cailean), the Accidental God
Desna (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Desna), Resplendent Goddess of Fortune
Hathor (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Hathor), Mistress of Jubiliation

Other:
[PENDING]


...regardless of the beliefs of others, if it helps someone sleep at night and doesn’t hurt anyone, a Chaotic Good character is most likely fine with people having a different religious outlook than them.

[ThinkMinty]

VIII. Other Alignments and You

Lawful Evil
****ing tyrants, the lot of them. If you have the chance to knock them out of power, take it. If you don’t, innocent people, and other people too, are going to suffer under their heel. Probably people you like, too. Don’t sit on your hands waiting for Neutral Good characters to mull it over or for Lawful Good to file the right paperwork, cut these pricks down.

Lawful Neutral
As bad as Lawful Evil is, these guys are even worse; they’re your truest enemy...banality. They don’t care about doing what’s right, or change, or anything, they just want their system. As long as the gears keep turning, they just plain don’t care. Their lack of freedom, and utter disregard for the virtue of it just ain’t right. No one’s above morality. Question their authority and opinions at any turn, and if you’re not saving the world with them, subvert them as often and openly as possible.

Lawful Good
They can be uptight, funkilling pricks-in-the-mud, but they mean well. They really do. They do what’s expected of them, which ain’t exactly your idea of good. They’re going to lecture you for enjoying yourself, or if you step out of their bounds. They’re not always right, even if they’re oh-so self-righteous. Play along when you can, treat them with as much respect as you can while retaining a modicum of dignity and free expression, and work with them on common goals. Just don’t expect it to be quiet.

Neutral Good
They’re not as freewheeling and all-the-time fun as you, but their heart’s in the right place. They’re trying to do the right thing and be good people. They have a less cautious, more ambivalent view on order, but they’re not usually trying to force you to be anything but better. If one of them is scolding you, listen.

True Neutral
Evaluate every True Neutral character you come across as an individual. They’re even more unpredictable than you are, and can be convinced to help you when you’re right...which is all the time, so at least try to get their help.

Neutral Evil
Neutral Evil is just...why? Why are they so mean? They’re selfish *******s, which might be admirable if they weren’t well, huge gaping *******s. They aren’t going to be good people unless it suits them...so put benevolence in their best interest, or you’ll have to get rid of them.

Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Evil is a shadowy reflection of your wonderful “be your own person” schtick, twisted into something horrifying that lets people do whatever they want, to whoever they want. Who’s going to stop them? You. You stop them. **** these guys. If there’s anything good left inside them, you can try to save them. If there isn’t, well, have fun putting the rabid dog down, because it’ll be a spectacle.

Chaotic Neutral
These guys aren’t as bad as everyone says they are. With a little guidance, you can show these hepcats how to live right as well as living free. Plus they’re really fun to roll with, so you’ll never be bored.

Chaotic Good
Live free, do right, row row, fight the power. Be friends with these guys, you’ll always agree...when it matters. The rest of the time, not so much.

[ThinkMinty]

IX. Words to Live By


Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

Rules and laws are fine, right up until they stop people from doing their job/the right thing. Then screw all that noise.


---
There will be more of these over the next few hours and/or days.


X. Acknowledgements
These hepcats helped out.
+Thealtruistorc
+Geddy2112
+Keledrath


XI. Sources/Examples of Chaotic Good

Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann. It’s essentially Chaotic Good: the Animated Series

---
More to come. Feel free to tell me if I missed any.

[ThinkMinty]

[reserved for future use]

[ThinkMinty]

[reserved for future use]

[ThinkMinty]

[reserved for future use]

Also, now open to the Playground!

[Texas Snyper]

Nice little guide. I just yesterday was thinking about changing my new lvl1 character from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Good and I think the sour lemon description fits perfectly for what I was thinking. Realistic about how the world is and everybody's role in it but still hopeful for the brighter outcomes.

[Red Fel]

Oh, how adorable. CG, the eternal rebel, has written itself a nice little handbook to disregard. Isn't that cute? It thinks it's people.

All teasing aside, this is a really excellent start. I like your archetypes and quotes, and you manage to bring an entirely appropriate tone to the guide as well.

[Vhaidara]

CG is one of those alignments I always kind of default to. In a scary parallel, CG and LE are my default mindsets. I enjoy LE more in the theory, from the perspective of an author, but I feel CG is more functional in actual play.

My personal favorite character is Nadia. If I had to draw a map of her personality mashup from media sources, Natsu+Kamina+Tyrael (Diablo 3, should totally be in the Bully Killer examples). Honorable to a fault(she will always keep her word, and hates being dishonest), but get her into a fight and it's all out the window. She'll kick you in the groin, throw dirt in your eyes, and sucker punch you before you're ready. Then clap you on the shoulders and buy you a drink.
(Mechanically, she's a Brass Sarkan Human (from my sig) Steelfist Commando Warlord with a secondary custom archetype giving her Draconic Bloodrage)

[Thealtruistorc]

I'm impressed, and would certainly like to see more of this. You did a great job on a rather short notice, and summed up a lot of different aspects rather succinctly (The Camus quote was a nice touch. Let's hope mentioning him becomes a trend).

The one issue I have is that your view of CG seems too homogeneous. Chaotic Good is chaotic, after all, and I imagine that disagreements will happen often when your only rules are the unwritten ones. There will likely be questions as to when it is okay to hurt others, and how much you are allowed to deprive another entity of. How much stealing from the rich is justified? How much collateral damage is too much? When is killing justified? What are some ways that CG characters can be harmful to the party, and what practices should be avoided? (Hint: it starts with a K and rhymes with blender). It would be nice to see a more diverse and fleshed-out perspective on all of this.

[Vhaidara]

Oh, actually, thinking back, I think Diablo 3's Tyrael brings voice to a category you missed: The True Crusader. The one who does what is right, in the FACE of what the laws or rules say. To quote the mangel himself (https://youtu.be/DESKsNOuq0A?t=1m27s)

We were meant for more than this! TO PROTECT. THE INNOCENT. But if our precious laws bind you all to inaction, then I will no longer stand as your brother.

This is ideal for the character who used to be LG and has shifted to CG. They realized that, as often as not, the laws PREVENT them from doing Good. And that isn't who they are. Similarly to how blackguards, the fallen paladins, are among the strongest of Evil's champions, so to are those who have realized this often the staunchest defenders of what is right, whatever others might say.

[martixy]

Other examples being Vash, Spike Spiegel, Indiana Jones/Han Solo, Wolverine :)

I've tried different alignments and I always find myself drifting towards CG, probably because I'm a sour lemon IRL.

Good start.
Though differentiating between CG and NG is kind of hard, might wanna devote a few words to that specific distinction.

[FocusWolf413]

You have a wonderful grasp of tone, which really says more about the alignment than your guide. Well done. Very well done.

[AvatarVecna]

The best part of this handbook is how it assumes the people reading it for information will be CG. CG people would seek their own version of CG, rather than accepting another person's definitions. Hell, I feel like writing a CN handbook now, just to see what I come up with. Also, I love the bit about NE interaction: "these guys are *******s, which which be cool if they weren't such huge gaping *******s".

[ThinkMinty]

Oh, how adorable. CG, the eternal rebel, has written itself a nice little handbook to disregard. Isn't that cute? It thinks it's people.

...that was really well-written, you magnificent bastard.


All teasing aside, this is a really excellent start. I like your archetypes and quotes, and you manage to bring an entirely appropriate tone to the guide as well.

I figured the tone would help pull it all together all nicely and whatnot.


I'm impressed, and would certainly like to see more of this. You did a great job on a rather short notice, and summed up a lot of different aspects rather succinctly (The Camus quote was a nice touch. Let's hope mentioning him becomes a trend).


The one issue I have is that your view of CG seems too homogeneous. Chaotic Good is chaotic, after all, and I imagine that disagreements will happen often when your only rules are the unwritten ones.

Yeah, fair amount of Chaotic Good is arguing about it with...everything else. I did leave a couple things out on purpose, because being a "maverick" Lawful just is not good enough.


There will likely be questions as to when it is okay to hurt others, and how much you are allowed to deprive another entity of. How much stealing from the rich is justified? How much collateral damage is too much? When is killing justified?

Some of that is best left unsaid, so people can work it out for themselves, I think? I'll flesh it out more over the next week or two, but (especially for now) it's more of a springboard than a splatbook.

To answer those questions, in my opinion, in order:
1. If you have a good reason to, like if the Dragon is trying to eat the Paladin. Or if it would be really, really funny and nobody gets seriously injured.
2. The surplus but not their necessities, but it's a different question to steal someone's scarf in a blizzard.
3. However much you can carry, and as often as possible.
4. It's too much collateral damage when it stops being buildings and starts being people.
5. It really isn't, but if you have to, keep the body count as utterly low as possible.


What are some ways that CG characters can be harmful to the party, and what practices should be avoided? (Hint: it starts with a K and rhymes with blender). It would be nice to see a more diverse and fleshed-out perspective on all of this.

I'm not going to tell people what not to do in a handbook about the alignment about not being told what to do. Heck, Kender aren't the problem, it's the lore. Just take away the "everybody likes them" thing, and they're vexatious little blighters who get a punch in the face if they're acting punchable, as was most likely intended. Part of that is just semantic, part of it is the thematic irony.

Or just encourage people to roll a gnome instead.

[ThinkMinty]

Oh, actually, thinking back, I think Diablo 3's Tyrael brings voice to a category you missed: The True Crusader. The one who does what is right, in the FACE of what the laws or rules say. To quote the mangel himself (https://youtu.be/DESKsNOuq0A?t=1m27s)


This is ideal for the character who used to be LG and has shifted to CG. They realized that, as often as not, the laws PREVENT them from doing Good. And that isn't who they are. Similarly to how blackguards, the fallen paladins, are among the strongest of Evil's champions, so to are those who have realized this often the staunchest defenders of what is right, whatever others might say.

That proposed archetype is...kinda specific, but I do always appreciate hearing about a Lawful Goodie who finally pulled the stick out of their ass to beat up some evil jerks with it.


Good start.
Though differentiating between CG and NG is kind of hard, might wanna devote a few words to that specific distinction.

How is it tricky? Neutral Good is wishy-washy about rules, Chaotic Good says **** that, I'mma ride consensual dinosaurs.

[Draconium]

You know, I am loving these handbooks. I hope that we get more of these, and we end up with one for each of the nine alignments. Red Fel would have to write the Lawful Evil one, though. :smallbiggrin:

I would write one, but I'm not enough of an expert on alignment to really write one like this. Perhaps a handbook on something I'm more familiar with, though...

[Geddy2112]

The guide is good in content, but great in tone!

You don't have to explain why, others have to explain why not! Yes!

[Cirrylius]

You know, I am loving these handbooks. I hope that we get more of these, and we end up with one for each of the nine alignments.

Seconded, so long as it can be stuck in some kind of mega-thread upon completion so it doesn't disappear into the mists of old posts and buried bookmarks.

[tadkins]

Chaotic Good, the best alignment! Well done, I greatly enjoyed reading this one. :)

Seriously loving all these alignment guides popping up.



Lawful Good
They can be uptight, funkilling pricks-in-the-mud, but they mean well. They really do. They do what’s expected of them, which ain’t exactly your idea of good. They’re going to lecture you for enjoying yourself, or if you step out of their bounds. They’re not always right, even if they’re oh-so self-righteous. Play along when you can, treat them with as much respect as you can while retaining a modicum of dignity and free expression, and work with them on common goals. Just don’t expect it to be quiet.



This describes a relationship I have with one of my friends to the letter.

[bekeleven]

As I am so fond of saying, the lawful are beings of process. The chaotic are beings of results.

The rest is window dressing.

Oh, and: The good are beings of altruism, while the evil are beings of selfishness.

[Seto]

Ok, this is becoming a trend. I'll be doing True Neutral.

Thanks for this thread, I had trouble wrapping my head around CG. I still have some. I mean, I played CG, I think I played it well, and I liked it, but when one leaves the scope of individual characters and try to theorize it, the concept of the alignment in general seems to run into more contradictions than any of the other alignments. I mean, when I hear "CG", I don't have the slightest idea whether I'm standing in front of an universalist ideologist, an hedonist who likes people, an extremist willing to compromise with moral laws (to a point), or a stark defender of the downtrodden unwilling to compromise with anything or anyone.
As others, I think this handbook would benefit from examining the biggest problems one can run into while playing CG. I'd have to nominate this one (that keeps me from adhering to Rousseau-style CG moral philosophies in real life) :
To CG, there are no objective moral laws, but a powerful, internal, moral compass. Ethics often consist in : making oneself more receptive to/able to hear that compass (clearing whatever internal interference there is), and having the courage to go through with what your moral compass tells you to do.
What happens when you "are of two guts on a matter" ? When your conscience doesn't quite know what to do and refuses to be simplified into a clear message ? LG will turn to objective rules or people whose moral authority they recognize. NG will turn to traditions, or do nothing in the absence of a clear reason to disturb the statu quo. Who do you turn to ?

[Vhaidara]

In a beautiful example of alignment irony, I actually think you could steal Red Fel's quote and character for the Dark Knight LE archetype (Rupert Giles) for the Disillusioned Crusader I was suggesting. Buffy's personal rules kept her from ending the threat that was Glory. Giles didn't let those rules hold him back from protecting his friends.

I also think it would be wonderful to point out how the same action from the same character can easily be interpreted to two opposite alignments. And the world needs more Giles.

[Seto]

In a beautiful example of alignment irony, I actually think you could steal Red Fel's quote and character for the Dark Knight LE archetype (Rupert Giles) for the Disillusioned Crusader I was suggesting. Buffy's personal rules kept her from ending the threat that was Glory. Giles didn't let those rules hold him back from protecting his friends.

I also think it would be wonderful to point out how the same action from the same character can easily be interpreted to two opposite alignments. And the world needs more Giles.

That's funny 'cause in my opinion he's TN. (Overall). Everyone sees things in their own way, I guess. Seconding the Giles-fan-ness though.

[Vhaidara]

That's but a third viewpoint . one which I share, simply because he covers the board. Hell, I think he even hit CE in his Ripper days.

[Segev]

An important point to remember, I think, is that CG isn't about opposing rules, inherently. It's about, as the guide says, disregarding them. What separates CG from NG is that NG appreciates rules when they work, and follows them until they don't. NG will work to change rules they think are bad (as will LG); NG will disobey the bad rules where necessary. CG... didn't bother picking up the rulebook in the first place, so isn't aware of the rules unless somebody (probably an L* type) rubs their noses in them.

But CG only actively opposes rules that are not only in their way, but consistently cause harm by their passive existence. CG, like all Chaotic alignments, views rules as a bunch of words. The only word that matters to a CG character is his own, given in good faith. And then only because breaking his word could hurt somebody who doesn't deserve it.


Also, CG types tend to appreciate traditions for the same reason NG types appreciate laws. Traditions are guidelines, ways to help make sure that everybody's at least speaking the same language. They're not rules, and can be disregarded when appropriate, but provide a starting point of assumption so that you at least know when to warn people that things might be different than expected. What CG types are not is hidebound. Traditions are nice. Failing to follow them is not a problem, as long as fair warning is given to those who might be - in good faith - relying on them. ("We always exchange my horse-shoeing service for enough grain to get me through winter! What do you mean you don't need it this year, so you're not making the trade? I was counting on this!")

[ThinkMinty]

Also, CG types tend to appreciate traditions for the same reason NG types appreciate laws. Traditions are guidelines, ways to help make sure that everybody's at least speaking the same language. They're not rules, and can be disregarded when appropriate, but provide a starting point of assumption so that you at least know when to warn people that things might be different than expected. What CG types are not is hidebound. Traditions are nice. Failing to follow them is not a problem, as long as fair warning is given to those who might be - in good faith - relying on them. ("We always exchange my horse-shoeing service for enough grain to get me through winter! What do you mean you don't need it this year, so you're not making the trade? I was counting on this!")

I think by traditions you mean agreements. Agreements are great, traditions are usually a Lawful's excuse for something horrible.

[Segev]

I think by traditions you mean agreements. Agreements are great, traditions are usually a Lawful's excuse for something horrible.

The difference between a tradition and a law is that a law is enforced; a tradition is just a standing agreement that can be changed or ignored when it gets in the way.

That Lawful types tend to treat traditions to which they adhere as if they were laws to be enforced is more a reflection of the Lawful tendency to resist change than anything else.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think by traditions you mean agreements. Agreements are great, traditions are usually a Lawful's excuse for something horrible.
"Agreement" isn't very appropriate here, since it implies terms consciously bargained-over. A better word might be "norm," which is unconsciously defined and redefined through the playing-out of social life.

A chaotic good person might slide easily into norms in exactly the way Segev describes, or might consciously challenge them in light of their principles. Like most things chaotic, it depends on the person and the situation.

[Segev]

"Agreement" isn't very appropriate here, since it implies terms consciously bargained-over. A better word might be "norm," which is unconsciously defined and redefined through the playing-out of social life.

A chaotic good person might slide easily into norms in exactly the way Segev describes, or might consciously challenge them in light of their principles. Like most things chaotic, it depends on the person and the situation.

Well-put. The Chaotic person need not reject all norms. He merely needs to be willing to toss them aside when they cease to support his conscience and desires (in that order of precedence).

[zimmerwald1915]

Well-put. The Chaotic person need not reject all norms. He merely needs to be willing to toss them aside when they cease to support his conscience and desires (in that order of precedence).
Indeed. But the relationship between chaos and norms isn't just contradictory, which it can be on the individual level. On a philosophical level, chaos depends on norms. Their existence and life cycle give the lie to the Lawfuls' just-so story about the war of each against all. It turns out, in the "real world" (insofar as any game world can be considered the real world), that norms emerge within societies without requiring any promptings other than the circumstances in which societies themselves emerge, and evolve according to their dynamics. They create the conditions for their reproduction, and conflict between norms and changed circumstances create the conditions for their abolition and replacement. Codifying norms into law only hinders this process, transforming evolution into revolution.

[Blackhawk748]

Oh this is so wonderful

[Cirrylius]

Ok, this is becoming a trend.

Considering the kind of umpteen-billion numbers of Google-choking multi-thread alignment discussion multi-threads there have been over the past forever, on this site alone, this^ is a long overdue and brilliant idea. I really hope this ball keeps rolling :smallbiggrin:

[AvatarVecna]

So yeah...I made a guide for Chaotic Neutral. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448806-We-re-Rebels-Without-A-Clue-A-Chaotic-Neutral-Handbook) I also made a super-thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread) to keep track of all the handbooks; hopefully, there'll be more coming.

[/shameless_plug]

[Ger. Bessa]

Of the alignment threads, this is the one that shows us what to do the less, and tell us what to be the most.

What if I don't want to follow the rule that "all CG hate slavery" ?
What if I discard what everybody else think of me and just do what I think is best for them (that must be good right, especially with a whip, the weapon of the bard !)

How interesting that while reading your description and imagining a character I ended up with the archetypes for CE and LE ...

For now this thread only has characters to imitate, and no light on how to create an original chaotic good character.

[Threadnaught]

http://i.imgur.com/AfUmcOW.jpg
The Sour Lemon



The Sour Lemon is the classic cynical Chaotic Good character; cynical might not be the best word, however. The Sour Lemon isn’t so much a cynic as a thoroughly and frequently disappointed optimist. At some point along the way, something terrible happened along and put its big clomping boot on their neck; it could be a single bad night in an alley, it could be an entire childhood full of abuse and neglect. This event ripped away her optimism and left the Sour Lemon raw, exposed to the capricious cruelty of reality. The Sour Lemon isn’t going to give up, however. She’s quick to help, always willing to try even if it won’t make one bit of difference. The Sour Lemon is stubborn to a frightening, self-destructive degree. The Sour Lemon, more than all the others, is defiant to the bitter end.

Examples: Sour Lemon: Homura Akemi (Puella Magi Madoka Magica), Dr. Perry Cox (Scrubs)

No way in Baator am I Chaotic Good, how dare you insult me so. I'm more like House or Sheogorath though.


I wonder how a Bully-Killer functions when the visibly weak prey on the weak (because of some injustice they're linked to) and are encouraged to move toward some form of violence by whatever is convenient enough to excuse a change in tactics.
Are the visibly weak in this situation Bully-Killers, or Bullies?

They do fight for justice, so does it matter if someone has to suffer for the greater good?


Can I watch a conversation between you, Red Fel, Thealtruistorc and whoever did Lawful Good? Oh and Neutral guy or whatever? I just want to see who tries to kill who first and what causes it. I promise only to interfere when doing so would make things more interesting.

[ThinkMinty]

What if I don't want to follow the rule that "all CG hate slavery"?

Then it isn't the alignment for you? The underground railroad is one of the best examples Chaotic Good has for bringing up, pointing to and saying, "Basically, this. This is what we're about."

[Red Fel]

What if I don't want to follow the rule that "all CG hate slavery" ?
What if I discard what everybody else think of me and just do what I think is best for them (that must be good right, especially with a whip, the weapon of the bard !)


Then it isn't the alignment for you? The underground railroad is one of the best examples Chaotic Good has for bringing up, pointing to and saying, "Basically, this. This is what we're about."

Got to go with this. Slavery is an embodiment of both Evil and Law, and stands as a violation of both freedom and moral decency. It is the definition of what Chaotic Good loathes most. There is no way that a CG character could stomach the practice.

Similarly, doing what you think is best for others isn't respecting their personal freedoms. Chaos is all about free expression, passion, and doing what you believe is best for yourself. Taking that decision from them is fairly non-Chaotic. Telling someone, "I know what's best for you, I'll do it," isn't a very self-expression-loving thing to do.

Of course, as the representative of Lawful Evil, I'm a big fan of telling people what's best for them. For the record, the answer is always "Red Fel."

[hamishspence]

Got to go with this. Slavery is an embodiment of both Evil and Law, and stands as a violation of both freedom and moral decency. It is the definition of what Chaotic Good loathes most. There is no way that a CG character could stomach the practice.

Except maybe in 1e "Gygax-style" games:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75


The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NG opponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force might enslave them so as to correct their ways or else do as the NG party did. CN and LN opponents would likely slaughter the lot. Evil opponents would enlist, enslave, or execute them according to the nature of the Evil victors and that of the survivors.

[bekeleven]

Chaos and freedom are not inexorably linked - least of all freedom of others. It's like saying the lawful evil count can't break the law, or condone others breaking the law. Both are false!

Lawful beings are being of process. They have codes.

Chaotic beings are beings of results. They believe the ends justify the means.

Chaos tends to be associated with people that like freedom, because rules limit their means by which to achieve results. But the link to "everyone else should be free" comes from goodness, and good characters can condone slavery in some circumstances.

[KoboldCleric]

Abolitionism
A Chaotic Good character abhors slavery; abolitionism is a prerequisite of this alignment. Every good-aligned character abhors slavery (Cityscape, Page 148. Yes, it's RAW.), Chaotic Good is the most likely of the Goods to free slaves without thinking about consequences. You have permission (and an obligation, to be honest) to go all-out John Brown on any slave auction you come across ...not that you needed it. The practice of slavery goes against everything a Chaotic Good character believes in; no exceptions.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

Snark aside, there are many possible exceptions to this "rule". The simplest is that even chaotic good characters can have flaws, and having accepted or learned to condone slavery could be one. I could also probably think up a version of the trolly problem in which even a chaotic good character would have to seriously consider condoning slavery as their most morally acceptable choice.

In general I actually imagine most chaotic characters would probably eschew consequentialist normative ethical theories (with exceptions, of course ;) ) for a number of reasons.

Not sure how you could test it, but would be interesting to see if there were any correlation between a character's d&d alignment (and mtg color identity, for that matter) and the normative ethical theory to which they subscribe.


EDIT: Doubly interesting to see the poster above me say the exact opposite, that he (or she-hard to tell from my cellular) thinks chaotic characters are more likely to be consequentialist in their thinking!

[Ger. Bessa]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!


That was my point. My bit with the whip and slavery part was just to illustrate what I felt while reading the handbook.

I'd say the problem is twofold, the tone is as pretentious as the PHB (telling us how it is and that's RAW), and the archetypes are only described.

Sure I know how to play a rascal, now, but it'll probably be the same rascal as any dude coming here to find how to play his CG halfling rogue. What I don't know is what makes the rascal CG and what can I take from it to make a composite character of a rascal and, say, Rupert Giles.

That's why with only unexplained archetypes and imperatives rules I can make a LE character that pretty much follows this handbook. (In my mind at least, with careful sailing through the contradictions in these rules).

Maybe I'm not made to be chaotic ?

[Elkad]

Calling Slavery "imprisonment at hard labor", and then locking people up for whatever crime you want/invent/codify is an easy way around any anti-slavery restrictions.

[zimmerwald1915]

Calling Slavery "imprisonment at hard labor", and then locking people up for whatever crime you want/invent/codify is an easy way around any anti-slavery restrictions.
It also isn't particularly honest. Or Good.

[Mar The Changer]

Calling Slavery "imprisonment at hard labor", and then locking people up for whatever crime you want/invent/codify is an easy way around any anti-slavery restrictions.

You don't seem to quite understand how slavery, crimes, and chaotic work, or their relationship with each other. Slavery is essentially just a bunch of rules that take away freedoms and force people what someone else wants them to do. All chaotics hate that. CE and CN, might not do anything about it as long as they're not the ones enslaved, but CG definitely would intervene if others are enslaved because it both takes away freedom [chaotic] and wrongs the people enslaved [good]. From the full CG alignment, slavery is against everything they stand for. Crimes have a similar relationship. Crimes are purely a result of rules being enforced, and chaotic doesn't care at all about rules, if they even know of the existence of the rules in the first place. They're not going to punish crimes and will often commit many themselves if it's for the good of the people. For example, say someone is jaywalking or loitering. Technically, they're committing a crime, but a CG person wouldn't care because it's not immoral or unethical, and CG doesn't think that loitering or jaywalking rules should exist in the first place. In another situation, say a lord or someone of high standing is mistreating one of their subjects, and they have full legal right to do so. They're not breaking the law, and intervening to defend the subject WOULD be a crime, but the CG doesn't care. It doesn't matter if the lord can legally mistreat their serfs. They're harming someone, and the CG hates that. They will try to stop the lord and will save the serf, even if that means they'll get imprisoned or executed, because that was the good and right thing to do, laws be damned.

As the title of the thread says, rules are for jerks.

[ThinkMinty]

Chaos tends to be associated with people that like freedom, because rules limit their means by which to achieve results. But the link to "everyone else should be free" comes from goodness, and good characters can condone slavery in some circumstances.

Got to go with this. Slavery is an embodiment of both Evil and Law, and stands as a violation of both freedom and moral decency. It is the definition of what Chaotic Good loathes most. There is no way that a CG character could stomach the practice.

If they do condone it, they're not being Good while doing it. RAW aside, it's slavery; I shouldn't even have to explain why that **** is not okay.


Maybe I'm not made to be chaotic ?

At least not Chaotic Good, anyways.

[Elkad]

You don't seem to quite understand how slavery, crimes, and chaotic work, or their relationship with each other.

Oh, I understand perfectly. My example was of a Lawful society, maybe even one that called itself "Good", passing a myriad of laws that led to what is in effect slave labor from prisoners.

On the Chaotic Good topic, remember Good is part of this discussion. That means if I (a CG person) see you committing an actual crime (something that harms another sentient, not just breaking a rule), I'll have an interest in stopping you at least, and maybe either punishing you, reforming you, or preventing you from doing it again.

Executing you is one method to stop you from harming others.
Obviously, that is the ultimate response (or at least it is in a world without Raise Dead).

Imprisonment is a lesser option. Maybe you'll reform. Requiring you to work for food (you are free to not work, and you won't be punished for it, but you won't earn any food either), or to work to pay restitution (again voluntary, pay your debt to earn your freedom), could be part of that.
Hell, maybe I'll leave it up to the victim what your punishment is. After all, they are the one that was harmed.

And what about Prisoners of War? Again, making them work for their own survival seems reasonable.
Even crippling them could be considered "good" by some interpretations.
If I release surrendered enemy soldiers (who were only following orders, possibly out of fear), they may take up arms against me again. Possibly involuntarily if they get press-ganged back into service.
Executing them after they surrendered could fall under "evil"
Blinding them and then sending them home is both merciful and pretty much guarantees they won't be back in the next campaign.

[Cirrylius]

Would Harry Dresden make a good CG example, do you think, or is he better suited elsewhere? If he is, or has been, CG, has he drifted during the series?

[Dread_Head]

Requiring you to work for food (you are free to not work, and you won't be punished for it, but you won't earn any food either), or to work to pay restitution (again voluntary, pay your debt to earn your freedom), could be part of that.

I don't think you can consider forcing prisoners to work for you under threat of starvation either good or chaotic. You are completely misusing the word voluntary here, if the only way to pay your debt and earn your freedom is by working for your captors then doing the work is under coercion and not at all voluntary.


And what about Prisoners of War? Again, making them work for their own survival seems reasonable.
Even crippling them could be considered "good" by some interpretations.
If I release surrendered enemy soldiers (who were only following orders, possibly out of fear), they may take up arms against me again. Possibly involuntarily if they get press-ganged back into service.
Executing them after they surrendered could fall under "evil"
Blinding them and then sending them home is both merciful and pretty much guarantees they won't be back in the next campaign.

Crippling another intelligent humanoid for being on the wrong side of a war is most definitely not good. As is the whole working for their own survival thing, again not particularly good or chaotic (in this case more allowable though in the case where you have lots of prisoners and no other way to feed and house them). There are other options here other than mutilation and concentration camps. Maybe they agree or sign a deal where they release them under the condition they never take up arms again. If need be this can even be backed up by spells such as Lesser Geas, Geas/Quest, Charm, Suggestion etc. Standard imprisonment without enforced labour works as well although only temporarily. I do not understand how blinding someone can be considered merciful.

@Cirrylius: I think Harry would make a good example of a CG character, fits almost exactly the Berserker archetype presented here and to a lesser extent the bully killer.

[zimmerwald1915]

Crippling another intelligent humanoid for being on the wrong side of a war is most definitely not good. As is the whole working for their own survival thing, again not particularly good or chaotic (in this case more allowable though in the case where you have lots of prisoners and no other way to feed and house them). There are other options here other than mutilation and concentration camps. Maybe they agree or sign a deal where they release them under the condition they never take up arms again. If need be this can even be backed up by spells such as Lesser Geas, Geas/Quest, Charm, Suggestion etc. Standard imprisonment without enforced labour works as well although only temporarily. I do not understand how blinding someone can be considered merciful.
While I agree with the overall point (that the suggestions to which you're responding lack both imagination and compassion), your specific suggestions aren't much better. Taking away someone's autonomy with a geas, for example, isn't particularly chaotic; not a foreclosed option, necessarily, but not the first one either. It's something you do when you're very sure you are more qualified to run the subject's life than the subject is, and chaotic tends to be more skeptical in that regard than lawful.

Let's take Elkad's scenario; in a war, you're worried about your enemy having conscripted their soldiers into service, and that they might be conscripted again if you let them go. There are couple options that haven't been mooted yet. If you can verify that a conscript, like many conscripts, really doesn't want to be fighting (detect thoughts or discern lies can be helpful here, as can the plain old Sense Motive skill), then consider releasing him behind your lines. The enemy is still denied him, and you don't have to worry about the logistical (considerable) or ethical (less so) issues of keeping prisoners. Or you might offer her a chance to join your side, if you don't think her loyalty to her old one is high. She might jump at the chance to liberate her homeland from whatever regime is resorting to levies en masse. Or if he's a mercenary, pay him to swap sides, happens all the time. What should jump out here is that your impression of the situation is what's important here. Following a set of guidelines takes second place to analyzing and responding to the unique circumstances of each case. Fairness in process takes a back seat to fairness in outcome.

Tailoring a response to the individual's circumstances might be difficult, if you come into a large group of prisoners at once. Holding procedures could become necessary, if only to assure basic living standards. But they ought to be temporary, in anticipation of a more tailored ultimate settlement. And CG in particular would be wary of the pressures towards making them permanent. It's very easy to just leave a situation be, even when it is unjust. That tendency must be fought.

[Segev]

Pretty much all alignments recognize the reality that, when somebody takes action in violation of your philosophy to disrupt/harm you and yours, they lose the right to any protections of your philosophy.

That is, you have a right to defend yourself, even if that deprives the one against whom you are defending of his right to take actions which could lead him to harm you.

From the CG perspective, if somebody violates the "right to swing fist ends at others' faces" rule, he has forsaken the right to swing his fist, generally in proportion with how willfully and destructively he violated the right of the other's face to be unhit.

Thus, even CG respects the concept of imprisonment, prisoners, and possibly even something that could be termed "slavery." (Many CG and CN cultures have a concept of victors getting to take some amount of indentured servitude from those they defeat, and even more have no problem with prisoners being put to work, forcibly if necessary.)

If you try to take over a CG kingdom and they defeat you, expect to be imprisoned and possibly forced to labor for your prison food to repay them for the trouble you continue to cause. (After all, they have to spend resources to feed you and on the security preventing your escape.)

[Abithrios]

A Concern for Others!
A Chaotic Good character, while somewhat selfish, has a genuine and hefty concern for other people’s well-being. When you find out that the schoolyard bully’s dad went out for cigarettes out one day and never came back, you’re going to feel bad for her, even if you kicked her ass that morning for tripping the blind kid. Chaotic Good characters are bighearted softies, even if they won’t admit it.


I think this is the thing to keep in mind when it comes to prisoners of war, especially conscripts. Keeping them from returning to the battle can be justified in the name of ending the evil that is war. Making life needlessly worse for people who never even wanted to oppose you or just signed up to protect their families cannot be justified.

When it comes to putting prisoners of war to work, it may be an improvement in quality of life to have something productive to do rather than sitting around all day. There are some definite limits to that, however. The work should not be anything too unpleasant and should never be directly contributing to the war effort against their friends.

If you can't get them to do the work by simple persuasion, it's probably isn't something you should be forcing them to do. Torture, solitary confinement, starvation and threats of the same are definitely not Chaotic Good things to do in this situation.

After the war, the priority should be to ensure the release of all prisoners of war on both sides.

Would also like to quote a sentence from near the end of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. The last few words are particularly relevant


We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

[Anlashok]

The one thing that bugs me about this guide is that it has an oddly narrow scope. Most of the archetypes are more variations of each other than anything else and there's some oddly hard rules the OP is trying to put down for an alignment that's literally by definition chaotic.

No talk of CG as vigilantes or scoundrels, which to me seem as fundamentally necessary to the archetype as all the talk of freedom fighters is.


Also is Robin Hood even CG? Especially the more modern versions of the story, with the emphasis on a strict code of ethics and protecting the throne, seems decidedly more LG than CG.

[Arc_knight25]

If you know the Brujah clan from the White Wolf game Vampires. This is how CG and CN characters would get along. They would each have their own view of the same outcome, but never agree on a proposed plan on getting there. Lots of infighting, mostly yelling matches, with the occasional fist fight breaking out.

[Segev]

I disagree. Punitive measures in the work and making them work to support your own (good-aligned, after all) war effort is not an evil thing to do. Nor is it anti-chaotic; they're dangerous to your freedom and that of those you care about, and they're so because they would willfully impede it when you hadn't done anything to deserve it (after all, if you'd started it, you'd hardly be CG).


Edit: In short, if you're questioning your right to use POWs for labor to assist your war effort, and even to deny them food if they won't work, then you probably should also be questioning whether you have the moral right to be waging this war in the first place.

[Dread_Head]

While I agree with the overall point (that the suggestions to which you're responding lack both imagination and compassion), your specific suggestions aren't much better. Taking away someone's autonomy with a geas, for example, isn't particularly chaotic; not a foreclosed option, necessarily, but not the first one either. It's something you do when you're very sure you are more qualified to run the subject's life than the subject is, and chaotic tends to be more skeptical in that regard than lawful.

I wasn't suggesting using magical compulsion as a general punishment for crime. It was in response to the specific problem of dealing with prisoners of war. I was suggesting that for a CG society they would probably release the POWs for parole taking their word for it that they wouldn't break it. If they were particularly untrustworthy (as might be expected) then this could possibly be backed up with a very specific magical compulsion. Something which would punish them for taking up arms against you the moment you let them go. Not dictating their choices to them but holding them to an agreement they made of their own free will.

I would argue that coercing POWs to work for you in the war effort against their own people is certainly neither good or chaotic even if the war you are fighting is for those causes. Certainly forcing them to work under threat of starvation. Offering voluntary labour in non war related efforts is absolutely ok, I'm not suggesting that they should be forced to sit around doing nothing all day. Also if there is no where to house the POWs and you have no food to feed them then forcing them to build houses and farm / gather / hunt food would be acceptable until they had a sustainable camp.

Otherwise I basically agree with what Abithrios and zimmerwald1915 are saying on this.

[Anlashok]

I was suggesting that for a CG society they would probably release the POWs for parole taking their word for it that they wouldn't break it.
That seems like a weird position to suggest a society that's at least partly founded on chaos would hold. Why would a society with an alignment that does not necessarily value concepts like trustworthiness or honor or reliability ever take someone at their word like that?

[zyggythorn]

Part of the difficulty in writing (or playing) CG is the question if what happens if/when they gain formal authority?

For example- Harry Dresden. From book one, easily a bully hunter. Hard to mistake that.

But a few books down the line, he's a magical police officer, has a supervillain lair, is a high ranking member of a global anti-vamp militia, a high ranking member of the local pro-normal pmc, and arguably head the wildcard faction.

That's a whole lotta LAW right there.

He's made plenty of cold calculations that fit into LE cleanly aswell- aforementioned supervillain lair, Mab, Any and all who have a slight blood connection to the Red Court.

Is he still CG? Pretty clearly- he's noted as uncomfortable being the authority he flipped his thumb at for so long.

All of the archetypes assume that the character has been or currently is boot-neck'd, and is some sort of rash decision maker.

There needs to be something about CG -IN- Authority.

And on a personal note- there needs to be the CG strategist archetype.

The sort that will hide your secrets until they need to be shared, and will manipulate you for your own good. (See Tavi, possibly Doroga both from Codex Alera)

[Slithery D]

There needs to be something about CG -IN- Authority.


He should like cats and pretend to be senile.

[Segev]

CG in authority tends to either try to reject it for ethical philosophical grounds, or tries to run the organization(s) he leads with his philosophy. Believe it or not, a well-thought-out CG approach to leadership can run a very efficient organization. Efficiency is not inherently a hallmark of Law; just look at bureaucracies for the counter-example proving that.

The troubles that a C*-run organization encounters tend to revolve around breakdowns of communication, failure of individual pieces, and too many cooks. Lawful organizations have strict procedures that ensure everybody is informed at the proper time, everybody has a job, and everybody knows what that job is. The troubles they have surround deliberate corruption and accidental bloat of these processes, creating bureaucratic walls and slowdowns when the right check box can't be checked or bottlenecks occur that MUST be passed according to process. C* organizations dodge this because their results-oriented focus lets them skip steps that aren't useful here. The trouble is, that attitude can lead to skipping important steps, too.

A CG leader can allow an LN organization to operate just fine; he tends to be a little lax in his own bureaucratic duties, which can gum up the works at times, but he also is willing to use his authority to simply bypass any rules that get in the way of the right thing. He's almost eager to; this can get him a reputation as a guy who gets things done, but it can also lead to more snarls down the line, as his change to policy while ignoring procedure can leave people out of the loop (if he's not careful) or can disrupt what previously ticked along like clockwork.

A highly competent CG leader can avoid these pitfalls by knowing what the consequences of bypassing process are, and acting directly to mitigate or repair them. If he's doing this, he's probably one of the favorite leaders the organization has ever had (assuming they're not leaning evil enough to resent his morality); he is comfortable authorizing troublesome rules to be bypassed, but competent enough to ensure that all the important things are done anyway by covering for what the bypass skipped.

An actual CG organization is probably more a group of specialized task forces which do their own thing towards the overall policy and goals set by the leadership. They can recognize hierarchy, but it's not rigid and authority is HEAVILY distributed to the low-levels. The leadership is usually more inspirational and aspirational, with a trouble-shooting job to smooth over the rough edges where lack-of-procedure created conflicts between task forces.

[Elkad]

One way to do CG "authority".

No written laws, just a general sense among the populace of like-minded CG types that you shouldn't harm others.

The "legal system" of Moon is a Harsh Mistress is probably pretty close.
Someone aggrieved you? Find a citizen willing to serve as judge, maybe some jurors, and have a trial. Or just take matters into your own hands. Of course if someone sees your sentence as too harsh, they may take matters into their own hands in reprisal. And so-on. Clan rivalries would be common, and lethal feuds wouldn't be unknown.

Government, if any, would do almost nothing. Maybe negotiate treaties, or direct the militia, but not much else. It would all be free-form. Invaders come, everyone grabs weapons. The chain-of-command would be loosely organized, and subject to change if individuals or small-unit leaders didn't like their assignments.

[Segev]

One way to do CG "authority".

No written laws, just a general sense among the populace of like-minded CG types that you shouldn't harm others.

The "legal system" of Moon is a Harsh Mistress is probably pretty close.
Someone aggrieved you? Find a citizen willing to serve as judge, maybe some jurors, and have a trial. Or just take matters into your own hands. Of course if someone sees your sentence as too harsh, they may take matters into their own hands in reprisal. And so-on. Clan rivalries would be common, and lethal feuds wouldn't be unknown.

Government, if any, would do almost nothing. Maybe negotiate treaties, or direct the militia, but not much else. It would all be free-form. Invaders come, everyone grabs weapons. The chain-of-command would be loosely organized, and subject to change if individuals or small-unit leaders didn't like their assignments.

See, that's CN/anarchy, not CG.

CG agrees that authority structures and limited laws which apply equally to all are necessary. Not to the degree that NG does, and CG sees having to resort to them as a failing on the part of all involved, but they're needed because sometimes even well-meaning people can't come to a mutually agreeable solution, and others...well, misunderstandings could lead to the wrong people being penalized (but at the same time, it's important not to let anybody off on a technicality if they're doing something wrong).

CG will have official authority figures, probably chosen by some form of acclimation or merit-based selection, because otherwise you descend into gang warfare when disagreements occur.

I mean, if you get "some citizen" to serve as your judge and others as your jurors, just getting your gang of buddies to do it means you could have findings in your favor all the time. Impartiality is important to fairness, and fairness is a moral rather than ethical consideration.

CG doesn't feel turning to authority is important all the time, however; only when they need arbitration, or when they need recompense that the other party is not agreeing to. It goes towards respecting others' rights to freedom, and property, and dignity.

[Elkad]

See, that's CN/anarchy, not CG.

CG agrees that authority structures and limited laws which apply equally to all are necessary. Not to the degree that NG does, and CG sees having to resort to them as a failing on the part of all involved, but they're needed because sometimes even well-meaning people can't come to a mutually agreeable solution, and others...well, misunderstandings could lead to the wrong people being penalized (but at the same time, it's important not to let anybody off on a technicality if they're doing something wrong).

CG will have official authority figures, probably chosen by some form of acclimation or merit-based selection, because otherwise you descend into gang warfare when disagreements occur.

I mean, if you get "some citizen" to serve as your judge and others as your jurors, just getting your gang of buddies to do it means you could have findings in your favor all the time. Impartiality is important to fairness, and fairness is a moral rather than ethical consideration.

CG doesn't feel turning to authority is important all the time, however; only when they need arbitration, or when they need recompense that the other party is not agreeing to. It goes towards respecting others' rights to freedom, and property, and dignity.

The judge/jury was agreed to by both parties in the story and paid equally by both parties, so you couldn't just pick a bunch of your cronies. The jury was randomly selected off the street (by going outside and offering money for jury duty).
There were professional judges, but they got that way by starting small and establishing a reputation for fair rulings, not because somebody appointed them. And society as a whole was good-inclined. It even talked about how it used to be much more neutral (or even evil), and had developed into a system with almost no written laws, and yet it was safe to leave your doors unlocked, your children unguarded (in actuality guarded by the entire populace), etc.

[ThinkMinty]

See, that's CN/anarchy, not CG.

In full political disclosure, the fun part of that is that I wrote the CG guide from an anarchist point of view, and it can be found when you notice that I talked about how anti-authoritarianism needs consistency to mean anything, so churches and companies are still morally accountable in addition to governments.

Side-note: It's also why I emphasized irreligion, and why some things that some people feel count, but don't count, aren't there, like Dirty Harry "Lawful Maverick" types.

IMHO, you'd need some things off the table, in forms of limitations on how harshly you can punish people. Inalienable rights prevent ochlocracy, and rights need a consensus so they'd be written down, although it'd be more like living law than inflexible dusty law.

So there wouldn't be executions or torture because they're flagrantly immoral, all people are equal before the law takes the widest interpretation possible; people's rights are discussed, clarified, elaborated and expanded as the society continues to grow and evolve. The justice is about making things right, so it's more about restorative justice rather than an abstract principle for the sake of principle, or inflicting brutality of criminals.

Redemption and reformation would be the desired outcomes. CG won't view the authority figure as any better than them as a person, and a CG authority figure isn't going to view anyone as better or worse than they are. Organizational structure is much more recon-pull than command-push.

Segev and Elkad both had some of it, with Segev de-emphasizing the Chaos and Elkad de-emphasizing the Good.

I largely left the authority unexplained because I hadn't thought of it at the time. It's tricky to think about how Chaotic Good would be in authority due to the sort of intrinsic paradox. You have to imagine someone anti-authoritarian and benevolent in a position of power. They'll either shift alignment by necessity, delegate responsibility to someone more trustworthy, turn it down, or lead more by example than by fiat. Subordinates are given wide latitude to improvise and prove themselves, rather than given rigid pushes.

As far as warfare is concerned, Chaotic Good's more about guerilla tactics, skirmishing, ambushing, and well, routing the other guys. Keep them on their toes so they can't organize around your lack of predictability.

...and now I'm veering into Crunch, which this isn't about.


He should like cats and pretend to be senile.

Lord Shojo made sure his city ran benevolently, even though he had to, in ways that probably hurt him a lot to do, lie to people he cared about. He was more concerned with the outcome than the process, and his successes inspired the Chaotic Evil Belkar Bitterleaf to, eventually, aspire to more than petty slaughter. Treating him like someone who's made mistakes but still has a chance to change, rather than a rabid dog on a leash like he saw others do, did much more to make Belkar a better person in the long run.

[goto124]

If I may ask, how do I play CG without turning out more like a CS (Chaotic Stupid)?

The CG's disregard for rules can be rather problematic, especially when 'rules' mean 'laws backd up by a huge organization with far more resources and connections than the party'. It does seem to make the CG more like an NG.

[Vhaidara]

Rules and laws are fine, right up until they stop people from doing their job/the right thing. Then screw all that noise.

[Abithrios]

If I may ask, how do I play CG without turning out more like a CS (Chaotic Stupid)?

The CG's disregard for rules can be rather problematic, especially when 'rules' mean 'laws backd up by a huge organization with far more resources and connections than the party'. It does seem to make the CG more like an NG.

Keledrath's answer is good.

Also, are those organizations claiming to be good? If so, make sure that their members are held to that standard. Chastise them if they let laws get in the way of the greater good. Be polite, but unwavering.

If you have to work with them, do so as an independent contractor, so that the people in the organization don't actually have direct authority over you.

Act on your chaotic side while you are not being watched. If they hire you to do a job, do it in the way that works best with your alignment. Make sure that they know that when they hire you, they are also hiring your way of doing business. This is another case when it helps to be the perfect picture of politeness, but without sacrificing even an inch of your principles.

This may not work at every table, but if you find that the game world is full of all powerful, all knowing, lawful organizations that you are forced to grovel to and that reward even the slightest bit of dissent with lethal force and undying enmity, then it might be time to find a DM who is less of a fascist.

[ThinkMinty]

Rules and laws are fine, right up until they stop people from doing their job/the right thing. Then screw all that noise.

I'm quoting you in the quotes section.


Keledrath's answer is good.

Good enough to quote, even.



Also, are those organizations claiming to be good? If so, make sure that their members are held to that standard.

You're the conscience for a Lawful Good character when you're Chaotic Good. They have one most of the time, but then a diplomat lights his wife on fire or a powerful person does something horrifyingly wrong, and suddenly it's all about process.

Same goes for Lawful Neutral, doubly so.


Chastise them if they let laws get in the way of the greater good. Be polite, but unwavering.

Politeness optional, wavering is a no. Lawfuls need scrutiny around as much as Evil needs a brick to the teeth.


If you have to work with them, do so as an independent contractor, so that the people in the organization don't actually have direct authority over you.

This. It may mean you have to be a mercenary for a Lawful Good or Neutral Good organization at times, which feels a bit itchy, but don't let them boss you around unless you know they're the Good>Law types. And even then, caution.


Act on your chaotic side while you are not being watched. If they hire you to do a job, do it in the way that works best with your alignment. Make sure that they know that when they hire you, they are also hiring your way of doing business. This is another case when it helps to be the perfect picture of politeness, but without sacrificing even an inch of your principles.

I tend to play Chaotic Good a little more exuberant than polite. I take the "everyone is equal" thing and it turns into being nice to orphans, and rude to kings, because the orphans don't ask you to kneel.


This may not work at every table, but if you find that the game world is full of all powerful, all knowing, lawful organizations that you are forced to grovel to and that reward even the slightest bit of dissent with lethal force and undying enmity, then it might be time to find a DM who is less of a fascist.

Fascism is Lawful Evil (Evil) if we're being specific about it.

if the DM tries to make you the collared pet of Lawfuls at every turn, the table might not be open to Chaotic Good.

[Anlashok]

I'm quoting you in the quotes section.
I feel like that's a really good quote... for a neutral good character. In fact, tolerating and respecting law and authority without feeling beholden to it and willing to buck it in the name of good is quite literally the definition of NG.

I feel like a lot of the talk in this thread has really tried to soften the C in CG because there's a tendency to associate chaotic behavior (recklessness, lying, cheating, stealing, irresponsibility, irreverence, resentment of authority) with evil behavior in real life (not so much the last two, but they're still being softened pretty hard here), when they aren't necessarily in the context of D&D.

And while it's totally possible and valid to play a CG character who toes the line of NG but just barely manages to be anti-authoritarian enough to remain Chaotic. There's a lot more to the alignment than that though.

[ThinkMinty]

I feel like that's a really good quote... for a neutral good character. In fact, tolerating and respecting law and authority without feeling beholden to it and willing to buck it in the name of good is quite literally the definition of NG.

I feel like a lot of the talk in this thread has really tried to soften the C in CG because there's a tendency to associate chaotic behavior (recklessness, lying, cheating, stealing, irresponsibility, irreverence, resentment of authority) with evil behavior in real life (not so much the last two, but they're still being softened pretty hard here), when they aren't necessarily in the context of D&D.

And while it's totally possible and valid to play a CG character who toes the line of NG but just barely manages to be anti-authoritarian enough to remain Chaotic. There's a lot more to the alignment than that though.

...so what would punch it up for you, exactly?


If I may ask, how do I play CG without turning out more like a CS (Chaotic Stupid)?

The CG's disregard for rules can be rather problematic, especially when 'rules' mean 'laws backd up by a huge organization with far more resources and connections than the party'. It does seem to make the CG more like an NG.

...is there a word other than problematic that fits better here?

Disregard means they don't factor into your decision-making. You're not slaughtering orphans because the town guards will come after you...you're not slaughtering orphans because that's a ****ed up thing to do. Any moment where you happen to be following a rule is incidental, and you don't do it on purpose unless it gets you tangibly closer to a goal of some kind.

Your first duty is to get away with it. Stick to that, and you should be alright.

[bekeleven]

I feel like that's a really good quote... for a neutral good character. In fact, tolerating and respecting law and authority without feeling beholden to it and willing to buck it in the name of good is quite literally the definition of NG.
Saying you follow the rules until they get in your way isn't respecting and tolerating them. In fact, it's saying you're acting exactly how you would have acted had the rules not been there in the first place.

Chaotic character's don't have to break every rule just cuz... They do it for the same reasons as everyone, because the the rule is stopping them from doing something they want or need to do.

[Ezekiel Moon]

I know the conversation about slavery was a while ago but I feel the need to bring this up. Half your statements on the topic seem to be that "slavery is just obviously wrong". But... should it really be that obvious to characters? Most D&D games emulate society as it was centuries ago, when various forms of slavery and indentured servitude were still common practices. And it's not like the fantasy world has fewer possible rationales.

What I'm saying is that it could very well be part of a society's framework that even Good people are simply accustomed to, and won't disrupt, whether or not they agree. I think this is important, because it makes the Chaotic Good position more unique and important. They're the ones who can question and reason independent of what society has decided. They can challenge the traditions that make up slavery.

[Segev]

The judge/jury was agreed to by both parties in the story and paid equally by both parties, so you couldn't just pick a bunch of your cronies. The jury was randomly selected off the street (by going outside and offering money for jury duty).That requires that the two parties even be able to agree to arbitration.

Joe claims the sheep he found out in the fields is his, because it was on his land and doesn't have any recognizable brand indicating anything but a wild sheep. Jim claims it's his sheep; he recognizes the splotch on the sheep's nose, and he's lost one.

Joe sees no reason to pay a judge and jury and then take the time to gather evidence or look through any of Jim's for holes. Joe has the sheep, and is ready to defend his herd violently if Jim tries to come onto his land and take it. Jim, meanwhile, wants that sheep, but can't get it back without trying to take it by force or getting a judge and jury together to agree that it should be taken by force.

Now, it may sound like Joe's being unreasonable, but from his perspective, Jim's just trying to cost him money! Best case, if he agrees, he's out the court fees; worst case, the judge and jury could side with Jim (for spurious reasons, no doubt), and he'd be out court fees and a sheep! Besides, Joe thinks Jim's just lying, because he heard Joe talking about the lucky find and decided Joe's luck should be Jim's. He doesn't think Jim had any such sheep before.


Without an authority structure to dictate whether or not Jim has sufficient evidence to back up his claim, Jim can't FORCE Joe into a court situation. Maybe Joe even has every reason to suspect Jim's motives, because Joe's had Bob and Sue both take him to court over sheep that he knows are his, but Bob and Sue are dishonest varmits who loudly slandered him as a thief until he humored them by paying for a court of law. He won against Bob, but Sue managed to play the pity act so well that she got to take a sheep Joe knew full well was born of his own flock and raised by his own hand. And each time, he was out court fees.

With an authority structure, there would be police and investigations to determine if these things even needed to go to trial. And Joe could be forced to do so under penalty of contempt of court if he was recalcitrant. Without it, if Joe says, "there's no case here and I'm not paying a judge to arbitrate," Jim's got no recourse short of theft or violence!

[Reddish Mage]

I know the conversation about slavery was a while ago but I feel the need to bring this up. Half your statements on the topic seem to be that "slavery is just obviously wrong". But... should it really be that obvious to characters? Most D&D games emulate society as it was centuries ago, when various forms of slavery and indentured servitude were still common practices. And it's not like the fantasy world has fewer possible rationales.

Various D&D sourcebooks have declared slavery to be contrary to Good. I recall Paladin's aren't allowed to own slaves in Divine Champion, although they don't have to kill every slave owner and free every slave. However, its not completely consistent, there's at least one Lawful Good society in the Forgotten Realms that has institutionalized slavery.

Note: D&D is a world of absolute Good. It imposes something akin to Modern Western Values (at least those held by the subculture that author and play D&D games) as being the standard of that Good. This standard is imposed as part of the fundamental structure of the universe. There is no "room for reasonable debate." People that do enough evil go to Hell or Hades, or one of the other eight or so evil planes. Beings of those planes will engage in actions like slavery and racism and other **** that was perfectly acceptable among respectable people in the 12th century, or say, on Aristotle's estate on his private island (that guy was quite well off and thought being born rich was a prerequisite to being good).



Saying you follow the rules until they get in your way isn't respecting and tolerating them. In fact, it's saying you're acting exactly how you would have acted had the rules not been there in the first place.

Chaotic character's don't have to break every rule just cuz... They do it for the same reasons as everyone, because the the rule is stopping them from doing something they want or need to do.

Actually that is heavily debated and debatable in the threads and the D&D books themselves are highly contradictory. Some of the things said about Chaotic characters (just read the PHB) make them seem to violate rules simply because its in their nature and they chafe at having to follow rules, and traditions, laws, and anything else orderly. Heck, it should maybe be uncharacteristic to find a Chaotic person that brushes their teeth twice a day everyday.

Other times, sourcebooks contain "chaotic" characters that rigidly adhere to all sorts of codes, traditions, procedures and even be part of highly complex ritualistic organizations, just not the type of organizations, laws or patterns associated with whatever the establishment is.

Similarly, some "lawful" characters (Roy is a great example) seem to violate rules and laws whenever they think what they are doing trumps them. Other characters (Durkon) will insist on going through the system even when doing so is patently absurd (check out his behavior at the Empire of Blood upon learning about the details of Roy's arrest). This isn't just an OOTS thing, the D&D game, novel, and campaign books are lousy with contradictory descriptions and examples.

As bad as it is though, I haven't seen a strict and consistent description of what constitutes "Chaotic" or "Lawful" that does the job well.

Pretty sure it would be uncharateristic for a Chaotic-perspective thread to finally offer the solution. :smalltongue:

[Anlashok]

Similarly, some "lawful" characters (Roy is a great example) seem to violate rules and laws whenever they think what they are doing trumps them. Other characters (Durkon) will insist on going through the system even when doing so is patently absurd (check out his behavior at the Empire of Blood upon learning about the details of Roy's arrest). This isn't just an OOTS thing, the D&D game, novel, and campaign books are lousy with contradictory descriptions and examples.

I don't think those are necessarily contradictory. One of the bigger alignment misconceptions is that Lawful has much of anything to do with the literal law. It talks about respecting legitimate authority and primarily about honor and trustworthiness. A character who completely bucks the rules of a society they consider unjust or illegitimate but maintains those other tenants is unquestionably a lawful character.

That's why the whole "send a paladin to an evil city and he can't not lose his powers" thing doesn't work, because disobeying a law that doesn't jive with the character's code of ethics isn't inherently unlawful behavior.


With Chaos, I think one of the biggest problems is that a lot of behavior that falls under the spectrum of Chaos is behavior that in regular society would be considered bad, but in D&D lying, cheating, stealing and so on exist outside the good-evil spectrum.. and that's weird for some people.

On top of that, kind of by definition Chaos is hard to define. Chaos is arbitrary, fickle and free-spirited and I have to sort of wonder when I'm reading posts and someone says something like "A chaotic character would NEVER do X". Because that kind of defeats the whole concept.

So instead we end up with a lot of chaotic good characters that are borderline neutral good (like some of the examples above), secretly lawful but anti-authoritarian (like, say, robin hood) and more rarely pretty good fits for the alignment but generally flawed characters. And lots o other weird stuff.

[Segev]

A Chaotic character doesn't CARE about rules, outside of those he establishes for himself as "good ideas" and/or "guidelines." I don't mean that he makes up a code of rules and remains chaotic; I mean that chaotic people are not (always) stupid, and that being "as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it" is not chaotic so much as stupid/mad behavior.

If there is a prescribed way to do things for a good reason - for instance, the "rules" involved in the processes to perform blacksmithy - a chaotic person will follow that prescribed way, generally. A chaotic person is more likely to take shortcuts than a lawful one, but there are perfectionists amongst the chaotic, who will be meticulous about whatever they're doing. But a Chaotic person who is following a procedure to the T is doing so because he believes every step is essential to getting the end result RIGHT, not because it's a rule. A Lawful person would follow it because that's how he was taught, and he trusts the system.

It is a lot harder to convince a Lawful person to change his procedure, even if you can show him that it has needless (or possibly counterproductive) steps, than it is to convince a Chaotic person to do so. A Lawful person is also not (necessarily) stupid, though, and CAN be persuaded to remove counterproductive rules. He will just be a little more insistent on solid evidence, and will also tend to want to make sure that such procedural changes are disseminated. Whereas a Chaotic person is more likely to be happy to optimize his own practice and let others figure it out for themselves (unless they ask or opportunity arises).

A Neutral person (on the law/chaos axis) is going to fall somewhere in between. They probably look a lot like the chaotic perfectionist in the example above, because they will tend to trust a system until it's proven different, but will be willing to make experimental changes and even take shortcuts if it's important.

Where the difference shines more is when it's not a process driven by "what works." Well-made laws and rules exist to facilitate smooth communication, clear expectations, and to spell out ethical standards. They do create processes for working with other people. They are, however, often quite arbitrary. Not pointlessly so, because there had to be SOME way determined (out of many possibilities) to do things, and the point of such laws and rules is to standardize those ways of doing things. Again, to facilitate smooth operations in general and make sure everybody knows what to expect and what needs to be done.

A Lawful person will adhere to these almost religiously, refusing to deviate because to do so is to risk confusing the system and gumming up the works. Even if it would be easier for them, or would enable something to be done that they agree should be done but which cannot under the system as-is (often due to a gap in the rules or some sort of catch-22), they feel that violating the rules to enable the activity to happen is not worth the trouble it could cause. At best, they'll seek to go through proper channels to change the rules officially to enable the action.

A Chaotic person generally will find no value in adhering to such rules and structures. They might do so when it works - after all, if it's just plain faster to fill out the proper paperwork than to try to bypass it, it's silly to refuse to use the system to your advantage. But the moment it's easier to cut a corner, to do things in some proscribed way, or to otherwise ignore the established rules, the Chaotic person will do so with nary a qualm.

The Neutral person is going to stick to the rules for the most part, even when they're somewhat inconvenient. He'll cut corners, but not so blatantly. "Only a little," so to speak. The Neutral person will hesitate to commit major violations of the process, and would require a very compelling reason to do so. However, if he sees a catch-22 preventing something he thinks should be done, the Neutral person will "make an exception" to get it done, where the Lawful person would not. The Chaotic person wouldn't have to "make an exception;" he's willing to ignore the rules for far less reason than a catch-22.

[Fizban]

As much as I love any Madoka reference, I can't agree that Homura was CG. Fighting for one person is not the same as fighting for everyone (in fact it's a perfect motivation for evil if you go far enough).

For more DnD gods/exemplary figures, why not hit the Book of Exalted Deeds? While the definition of Exalted characters is a bit dogmatic (particularly in the "must accept any surrender no matter how many betrayals" part), it's got two deities (Chaav and Lastai, joy/delight and pleasure/love) and three celestial paragons (Gwynharwyf in particular as the patron of EXALTED RAGE) for the alignment. Though admittedly the paragons are pretty bare, two being faerie court style when you're emphasizing total lawlessness, and Gwynharwyf having no fluff aside from. . . exalted barbarian.

[daremetoidareyo]

I have some great rants about theft belonging on the lawful chaotic axis rather than the good vs. evil axis in the thread about can a VOP character steal? That might be helpful for this discussion. Particularly in light of the exalted suggestion.

[Segev]

"Theft" actually gets into some pretty deep philosophical territory. On the surface, we all know what it is, and that it's wrong. Taking that which is not yours does hurt the rightful owner, and even if you can justify it by "he'll never notice," it's still not right.

That said... you can't discuss theft without discussing ownership as a concept. How do you determine who owns a thing? The most straight-forward way is possession: it seems likely that the guy who has it "owns" it. But of course, with the concepts of theft and borrowing, they may not be the rightful/actual owner.

So, how do you determine the "rightful owner?" If I steal a jacket from the store, I am not the rightful owner by any standard of my culture. However, since jackets aren't exactly things that come with titles, deeds, or other documentation filed with a recognized agency, if I get away with the theft, I am practically the owner by virtue of everybody who sees the jacket on my person or in my closet thinking I am. If I sell it, the new person will definitely be viewed as the "rightful owner" by culture and society, because nobody is really aware (other than me, and even I may have forgotten) that I stole it in the first place.

In fact, if I catch somebody taking it without my permission, I am very likely to accuse THEM of theft! And possibly have the law back me up if they're caught in the act. (Nobody is going to expect me to have a receipt proving the jacket was bought legitimately in the first place, especially if it's been a few months.)

But the truth is that the jacket is still rightfully the store's. At least legally, and probably culturally/ethically/morally/socially, if people realized what I'd done.


Generally, we tend to assume that the "rightful owner" is either the creator of an item, or the person who commissioned/bought the item from the creator. We also accept gift-giving as a way of transferring ownership rights.

To an extent, there's a moral component to ownership and theft: if you steal from somebody, you're depriving them of the fruits of their labor and causing them material harm by denying them that which they could have used to better their life in some way. But there's also definitely a legal component.

Interestingly, even CN types tend to recognize ownership traditions. They do tend to be of the "finders keepers" mentality, accepting possession as ownership barring gross amounts of theft. But they do recognize chains of custody and ownership: a CN type is likely to agree that a jacket stolen from Little Orphan Annie by Bad Bart and sold to Daddy Warbucks should be returned to Little Orphan Annie, in concept. It was a gross violation of her individual rights to take her (probably only) jacket, and while the CN type may not feel any obligation to HELP her get it back (barring fear that Bad Bart or others like him might do the same to the CN guy if he doesn't make a stand), he'd agree that it's hers.

Where CN types get muddy is when they don't see how it "really" harmed the "victim." If a CN type, in his own judgment, feels that you don't need something, he might not see the ethical problem with taking it from you when it helps the thief so much. CN types are a bit selfish and arrogant at times; it comes with the whole "own master" thing and the lack of strong upward-pointing moral compass to make one care about others as oneself.

I think that's why we tend to lump theft as an ethical issue rather than a moral one. Laws often define ownership, so theft tends to be a legal issue. It's "theft" under some laws to hunt deer in the wild, because they all "belong" to the local lord. Never mind that, under most traditions, the hunter would be the "producer" of the carcass and thus its owner. On the other hand, those same principles are applied to make a rancher's property not okay to hunt. The CN or even CG type might see the former as tyranny and the latter as "just," depending on his personal views. The LN or LG type will tend to see both as "just," though the LG type might voice concern if the law of claim is too far-reaching. (He would, of course, seek to change the law, not to allow it to be violated as an act of rebellion the way the CG/CN types would.)

Ownership is so sticky because we USUALLY assume the person harvesting the raw materials owns them...but land ownership can change that, too. If you harvest trees off of my back yard, you're stealing from me. If I claim all of the land that is watered by the river at whose mouth I stand, however, are you stealing from me to harvest trees from it? Or was I stealing by claiming it? Do I have any RIGHT to that claim?

The amount of power to claim "unclaimed" property is always a delicate issue. Most people will tend to agree that, if you claim and then work/control/improve the land, it's yours. You've made it into something worth having, from something merely with potential. And nobody had it before. But what if you claim it, then I come along a year or two later and make a similar claim, and I start to work it where you never did? Why is your prior claim valid? What stops you from just drawing a circle on a map and claiming every unclaimed inch of land represented in the circle as yours?

It's sticky, which is why it gets into legalism and becomes a matter of Law. (The CN sort tends to only claim as "his" that which he can work and/or defend, and view claims of ownership that cannot be enforced or are not enforced until he's put work into making it worth claiming with contempt.)

[Anlashok]

I have some great rants about theft belonging on the lawful chaotic axis rather than the good vs. evil axis in the thread about can a VOP character steal? That might be helpful for this discussion. Particularly in light of the exalted suggestion.

Is that even a point of contention? That's like, one of the main points of the law/chaos axis. I mean, "noble thief" is one of the stock and trade chaotic good archetype.

[daremetoidareyo]

Is that even a point of contention? That's like, one of the main points of the law/chaos axis. I mean, "noble thief" is one of the stock and trade chaotic good archetype.

I totally agree.

When it comes to exalted, there is a conflation of good with lawful. Few people stop and think about what the psychology of CG would lead an exalted character to be far different than that of a LG character; especially one that takes a VOP. The VOP is a criticism of social structures and a rejection of the value of material goods. In that thread, there was a strong contention that kender can't be exalted, despite being culturally pre-dispositioned to disbelieve in property rights.

I then went on to rant about how property rights are a lawful construct that don't necessarily support goodness, but instead favor orderliness. When property rights are applied to land, all you have is an entrenchment of power. When property rights are applied to concepts, all you have is credit seeking for personal profit at the expense of the social fabric. (Ever hear of patenting the genetic code of creatures) If an inventor is unwilling to share their idea unless they get something material in return, they have every right to do so, but then they are just selfish. Which is fine, but if you are unwilling to cure a disease because you don't feel that you'll get enough material credit, your brilliance will go unacknowledged. When property rights are applied to stuff, you get the convenience of expecting that something that you feel belongs to you will continue to be yours unconditionally. This simplification blinds people to how materialsim disrupts true interactions. All of these things are unnecessary for a society to function: communal property rights for land and ideas covers the first two, and then possession is the only true metric of ownership for the last one.

A chaotic creature who takes a VOP is highly likely to ignore any expectation that the wealth attributed to them by a capitalistic system is something that could or should be respected. Rules that are dumb are supposed to be broken. Trespassing is a concept invented by those who own enough property and need a means of controlling it, as if the entire world doesn't belong to us degenerate mutants.

We then discussed why it is more wrong to rob a grave versus rob a person that you just killed in D&D. What is the substantive difference? We then discussed how theft of a living persons gear might be a more good outcome if it 1.) neutralizes the threat and 2.) doesn't result in death. Where being an agent of death does not ping against your exalted status, yet there is a consensus that an exalted character that steals is trying to get away with something.

[Segev]

Property rights tend to be respected by people who are of anything but CN alignment. CN may well take a lackadaisical approach to the idea that someone is responsible for maintaining a thing and thus has first "dibs" on it. CE and CG both will recognize the concept of "property" as a legitimate thing: CE might only do so insofar as it's enforced or they can enforce it, and CG might be very lenient in allowing that property rights are more guidelines than strict rules (and base the idea on what somebody really NEEDS), but they'll recognize the importance of them.

Theft is a Chaotic concept because it represents a willingness to violate that rule about ownership. It is something that even CG types frown on when done in a way that hurts innocents. It is something that even CE types frown on when it hurts THEM. CN...could be offended by it, but is most likely to let it go. But, being Chaotic, they also might be vengeful about it. They just tend to accept that it's something people do and be willing to do it casually. Or, rather, somebody willing to do it casually is more likely to be CN. No Lawful person would condone it. Hence why it is a Chaotic act, even if not all Chaotic people would support it.

[Anlashok]

It is something that even CG types frown on when done in a way that hurts innocents. It is something that even CE types frown on when it hurts THEM.

Yeah, but I don't think that really disagrees with the point either. Chaotic (and lawful) actions exist independent of Good or Evil, so a chaotic (or lawful) act could be either good or evil depending on how it's applied.

It works in reverse too, a paladin won't like laws and rules that provide for the abuse and oppression of innocents. That doesn't make the society in question or the paladin less Lawful, it just means that a LG character doesn't like LE means.

I think it only gets tricky because concepts like lying, cheating and stealing are considered bad by most modern societies, when in D&D they're just chaotic and you can very easily have a lying, thieving, cheating, reckless and irresponsible good guy and an honorable, chivalrous and noble villain.

[Abithrios]

It is something that even CG types frown on when done in a way that hurts innocents. It is something that even CE types frown on when it hurts THEM.

I love these two sentences. I think they are true not only when "it" refers to theft,as in the original context, but for almost any other context as well.


I think it only gets tricky because concepts like lying, cheating and stealing are considered bad by most modern societies, when in D&D they're just chaotic and you can very easily have a lying, thieving, cheating, reckless and irresponsible good guy and an honorable, chivalrous and noble villain.

I think there is a good reason for that perception. Lying, cheating, and stealing are all very often harmful to people. In the real world, people rarely embark on life or death adventures and we almost never meet anyone who might fairly be regarded as a villain. The (good vs. evil) moral calculus is almost always such that stealing would do more harm than good. On the other hand, this is a game in which the stereotypical GOOD, knight in shining armor types get a class feature called smite evil. That pretty much screams that in this setting, hurting people is often the most good thing you can do, as long as it is against acceptable targets. Apply that same logic to theft and you will predict that far more circumstances will arise which justify such tactics than you would expect in the real world.


Regarding voluntary poverty, I can easily imagine a chaotic good person choosing that kind of life. They would say things like:
"Things aren't really what is important. People are what's important. You might as well give the things to those people."
Or after finding a gem: "It's rather pretty, but I couldn't claim to own it, the earth made it, so if anything, the earth owns it."
Or when finding anything of value: "I know just who could use this!" is their first thought, and it never occurs to them that they could be the one.
Or when asked about future food security: "I've always managed to find enough so far. I'm sure it will be fine."

Overall I am trying to paint a picture of someone who intentionally chooses to not sweat the small stuff and regards all worldly possessions as small. If asked why, they will answer that it is too much hassle keeping track of belongings and will only be half joking about it.

A lawful person gives up possessions because they want to be pure and self sacrificing. A chaotic person gives it all away because it was never all that valuable to them in the first place.

One caveat I would add-the idea of a vow is a lawful one. Chaotic people can be consistent when it matters, but it might be best to call it something else. Additionally, the vow of poverty feat as written is well known for its tendency towards lawful stupid. It deserves a rewrite for any use, and doubly so for a chaotic character.

[Bohandas]

Eva Peron might be another good real-world example of the social bandit. She was the first lady of Argentina in the 1940s and she used her position to extort businesses into donating money and goods to poor people and orphans under threat of having them shut down on trumped-up charges. She was falsely accused of embezzlement from her charities, but the discovery of very much unfenced formerly missing donations years after her death has since vindicated her as merely being very very poorly organized.

[Segev]

Eva Peron might be another good real-world example of the social bandit. She was the first lady of Argentina in the 1940s and she used her position to extort businesses into donating money and goods to poor people and orphans under threat of having them shut down on trumped-up charges. She was falsely accused of embezzlement from her charities, but the discovery of very much unfenced formerly missing donations years after her death has since vindicated her as merely being very very poorly organized.

That sounds pretty CN, to me. Good intentions, perhaps, but questionably moral methods and careless execution such that her "good intentions" may have caused more harm than good in terms of the resources squandered.

It is not CG to walk up to somebody and mug them because you intend to give their wallet to a bum on the street, and then shrug and go "oops" when you happen to misplace the wallet before you hand it over. Especially if you do this repeatedly.

[daremetoidareyo]

That sounds pretty CN, to me. Good intentions, perhaps, but questionably moral methods and careless execution such that her "good intentions" may have caused more harm than good in terms of the resources squandered.

It is not CG to walk up to somebody and mug them because you intend to give their wallet to a bum on the street, and then shrug and go "oops" when you happen to misplace the wallet before you hand it over. Especially if you do this repeatedly.

Yeah, but she was mugging self interested global conglomerates who derive their value by leeching the land and public and human resources for their own wellbeing. Organizations are beholden to the same responsibilities as people, and that is what she did. From her perspective, at least the people at the bottom of the structure got some sort of safety net after being born under the footsteps of elephants.

[Segev]

Yeah, but she was mugging self interested global conglomerates who derive their value by leeching the land and public and human resources for their own wellbeing. Organizations are beholden to the same responsibilities as people, and that is what she did. From her perspective, at least the people at the bottom of the structure got some sort of safety net after being born under the footsteps of elephants.

That's nice PR your CN thief has going for her; it doesn't make her CG.

I think debating further whether "global conglomerates" owe something more than what they sell in return for the money they receive is likely to venture into political discussion inappropriate to this forum.

[daremetoidareyo]

That's nice PR your CN thief has going for her; it doesn't make her CG.

I think debating further whether "global conglomerates" owe something more than what they sell in return for the money they receive is likely to venture into political discussion inappropriate to this forum.

We don't need to push it any further, but we do seem to have returned to concepts of property rights and to whom they are accorded, and how when chaotic crosses over those suppositions, it is derided as evil, or at the very least, not good.

Which is a lawful evil concept with good PR. ;)

"Those demons are taking away your hardwork that you earned through complicated accumulation of wealth, slavery, and behavior prohibitions that fall only on those too weak to defend themselves."

The Chaotic Good don't care about whether or not you "earned" it, that is a false concept that is being used to justify why others are going deprived. Dude with a closet full of fancy clothes can talk about fairness all they want. But if one agrees that one doesn't give antibiotics to the healthy, one should conclude that it is "fair" to suspend concepts of "fairness" as one accumulates power to shape ones destiny as one sees fit. Context and obligation are different for different folks. Liberating a slave isn't a theft. Demanding that a rich person supports poor orphans if they want to continue being perfectly comfortable under threat of loss of power, isn't evil. It's effective chaotic good.

Which can be spun to at least appear non-good...because Lawful evil has successfully argued that disrespect of rules, which are just word-cages for behavior, is evil. To a chaotic person, successfully attempting to cage peoples' behavior through words is evil unless they consent to it. And if that consent is inherited, like laws are, then it is absolutely fine to decide for oneself to trespass those rules.

This is the corrupting influence of lawfulness that blames the rioters and not the sustained and ignored complaint that eventually erupts. It isn't evil to oppose the society that allows things to get so bad, even if that means robbing and breaking things that belong to people to force them to listen to the perceived injustice.

[Segev]

We don't need to push it any further, but we do seem to have returned to concepts of property rights and to whom they are accorded, and how when chaotic crosses over those suppositions, it is derided as evil, or at the very least, not good.

Which is a lawful evil concept with good PR. ;)Not really. "Property rights" are a Lawful concept, but the concept of "mine" and "earned" are not. Those are independent of Law and Chaos, and it is a measure of your morals whether you consider others to have a right to claim the fruits of their own labors. And it is a distinctly Chaotic concept to determine that people have a right to determine for themselves what to do with their own efforts, time, and talents. Good assumes that it is the privilege and right of anybody to be free to do what they will for themselves; Evil assumes the authority (if only by dint of "I'll kill you if you don't") to compel others to do something on its behalf, proactively.


"Those demons are taking away your hardwork that you earned through complicated accumulation of wealth, slavery, and behavior prohibitions that fall only on those too weak to defend themselves." Ah, ah, ah. *wags finger back and forth* Injecting additional facts to narrow it down, declare an alignment based on those specifics, and then apply it broadly is bad form and worse logic.

Slavery, deception, and extortion are definitely Evil when applied to the innocent. That is not in question, here. Not all "global conglomerates" inherently perform these things, despite the PR of the Evil who wish to use such claims to justify their own confiscatory practices.


The Chaotic Good don't care about whether or not you "earned" it, that is a false concept that is being used to justify why others are going deprived. Dude with a closet full of fancy clothes can talk about fairness all they want.Au contraire. The moment you presume to be the judge of whether somebody has a right to something based on "need," you step out of Good and into Neutral, at best. Certainly, you are not being CG, which respects everybody's right to self-determination and to manage their own resources, so long as they're not actively (rather than passively) harming others in the process. ("Passive harm" meaning "not giving 'enough' to save them.")


But if one agrees that one doesn't give antibiotics to the healthy, one should conclude that it is "fair" to suspend concepts of "fairness" as one accumulates power to shape ones destiny as one sees fit.The distinction lies in the verb "give." You do not GIVE antibiotics to the healthy, no, but neither do you confiscate them from the healthy just because you think somebody else needs them more. You ask, you buy, you plead, or you make increasingly persuasive (e.g. "more money" or "cooler stuff for barter") offers, or you go make some, yourself. It is only justified, under Good auspices, to take by force when the antibiotics have been acquired through nefarious means, which requires trickery, extortion, or taking-by-force from an unwilling producer.


Context and obligation are different for different folks.Yes and no. Context is important, but context is mainly about whether or not the one you're "liberating" something from acquired it in a Good, Neutral, or Evil fashion. Anything short of Evil, and you're probably in Neutral territory in taking it from him. (Unless you're literally reciprocating his own action. I will grant that a Good person can perform a Neutral action that is the reciprocal of a Neutral action against him or one on whose behalf he acts.)


Liberating a slave isn't a theft.Technically, it is, unless the slave was taken by the man from whom you're liberating him through dishonest means - i.e. "theft" of the freedom of the slave. I won't say it's WRONG, but only because involuntary slavery of an innocent is wrong; it still is Neutral at best if you don't compensate the slave's former master for the cost he put forth in acquiring said slave (again, assuming he did so without actively taking part in depriving an innocent of their freedom and enslaving them).


Demanding that a rich person supports poor orphans if they want to continue being perfectly comfortable under threat of loss of power, isn't evil. It's effective chaotic good. No, it's CN at best. Unless that rich person has somehow caused the suffering of those orphans, it is not Good to coerce him into doing good. Good people give of themselves; they don't enslave others to do it for them and then claim they are good people for having done so.

And forcing even well-off people to do something against their will with their non-evilly-acquired property is slavery or theft.

It is not YOUR place to decide that it is Scrooge McDuck's responsibility to take care of those orphans. And holding him at gunpoint or robbing him blind to force him to doesn't make you a good person. It makes you AT BEST neutral, because you're willing to infringe on others' freedom and right to determine their own moral agency to achieve your ends.

Now, a CG person can perform a CN act without "falling" from CG, but patterns of behavior and all that.


Which can be spun to at least appear non-good...No spin required; the moment you decide that you have the right to use force to compel others to pro-actively behave as you desire, you're stepping outside of Goodness.


because Lawful evil has successfully argued that disrespect of rules, which are just word-cages for behavior, is evil.Not relevant. It's not about "rules" but about agency and right to one's own life and what one does with it.


To a chaotic person, successfully attempting to cage peoples' behavior through words is evil unless they consent to it.Actually, caging somebody who hasn't actively hurt anybody else is evil, anyway. Chaos and Law only determine how the caging is "ethically" acceptable. (And a CE person is fine with it; it's their right to do whatever they want because they can, and anybody they hurt can go cry about it for all they care.)


And if that consent is inherited, like laws are, then it is absolutely fine to decide for oneself to trespass those rules.I'm not sure what this is trying to say.


This is the corrupting influence of lawfulness that blames the rioters and not the sustained and ignored complaint that eventually erupts.No, the rioters are performing acts of evil because they are hurting people who never did any harm to them. "Existing" and "not giving me stuff that I want" is not harming you.


It isn't evil to oppose the society that allows things to get so bad, even if that means robbing and breaking things that belong to people to force them to listen to the perceived injustice.
...no, it is evil. It's selfish cruelty for the purpose of getting what you want, and damn anybody who gets in your way.


Good civil disobedience doesn't hurt people. See: MLK, Jr.'s marches and demonstrations. Which were generally non-violent, and which he always exhorted to refrain from violence. It is the very goodness of his efforts which made the evil actions to oppose them so unconscionable that the very culture shifted in his favor.

The only way to really even attempt to retain the mantle of goodness and righteousness when engaging in "riot" behavior is if you are actively declaring that the whole system is so corrupt that you must overthrow it. Declare open, honest war and direct your action not against the easy targets of the largely undefended civilians, but the power structures at the top. And, in victory, take no action against the civilians; becoming a despotic tyrant when you win doesn't make you good, either.

[daremetoidareyo]

Lots of good points that I'm not going to address in this forum at this dosage.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on a large number of points. All of your reasoning is sound and true to the common worldview at large. I am confident that my rebuttal carry the same amount of logical heft, be internally consistent, and downright rational, but still be unconvincing to you because of features of our own particular individuality; risk tolerance, pro-progress bias, political theory, etc. This could be a great debate that leaves us, once again, in respect of each other's acumen, but....

I don't have the time to substantively address each of these and do them adequate justice, especially when arguing from a worldview that isn't entirely my own, so each concession would move me more and more towards arguing towards neutral good or chaotic neutral good, (if such a thing exists) as I imbue more of my own real thoughts into the proxy of a "CG" version of myself.

Further, respecting the boundaries of steering away from real world examples so as to keep all of the hard work on the thread open is really difficult. And really hamstrings the frank discussion that I easily imagine this turning into. And I know that I'll be tempted to use them, while thinking that "surely this isn't a transgression..."

I already saw one thread that we were both contributing to close today, and unlike that one, this one actually has a masthead of attempting to help people reconcile a difficult alignment and we both don't want to be responsible for undermining that.

[Bohandas]

How is the description I gave of Eva not that of a less violent and more chaotic Robin Hood

[Segev]

How is the description I gave of Eva not that of a less violent and more chaotic Robin Hood

Ah! I love this question, actually, so thanks for asking it!

Robin Hood is very often misrepresented in discussion about what he did. The classic line is "rob from the rich to give to the poor," and while that seemed adequately descriptive in the era wherein his story originated, its accuracy is rooted in a very different context than the one in which it is often attempted to be applied today. This context can be seen if one actually pays attention to what is going on in the story of Robin Hood: he is a robber who steals from Prince John and the Sherriff of Nottingham's tax collections to return that money to the poverty-stricken peasants from whom it was taken.

"The rich" in this context are government officials who are abusing their legal power of taxation (or corruptly misappropriating tax funds and then taking more than is necessary, depending on the version of the story) to beggar the hard-working peasantry for their own lavish living. They redistribute wealth from the common folk - who actually produce something for their livelihoods - to themselves and their cronies with naught but "I have the power to take it and you can't stop me" as a reason. (Well, in some versions, "to pay a ransom for King Richard" is provided, but it's clear that they're lying through their teeth and spending all the taxes on themselves in such versions.)

No matter how much you hate corporations and think they're exploitative villains, they do not have the power to tax. They cannot bring cops against you if you don't buy their product. They cannot demand you hand over your savings in return for nothing and call it "taxes." In a deliberate bit of apparent (though not actual) irony, Ayn Rand's character of pirate captain Ragnar Danneskjöld is actually exactly a modern (for Rand's era) version of Robin Hood: he robbed from the government to give back to those who produced the wealth from which the misappropriated tax dollars were taken. Interestingly, those who viewed him in her story as a horrible villain were the very analogs to those who viewed Robin Hood that way: the rich and powerful elite of government circles who based their wealth on crony connections and political power to coerce people into giving their money up. Usually as "taxes," though in Rand's apocalyptic vision, other less obvious means were also used.


In short: Eva is not Robin Hood because she is, instead, a more well-meaning but equally wasteful Prince John. She extorted funds from producers to use how she saw fit, and then squandered that confiscated wealth. Perhaps she did not do so on herself, as Prince John did, but she still did so. Analogously, Robin Hood would be a woman (nicely, "Robin" works for a girl, too) who looted Eva's repositories and gave the donations back to the control of the corporations who made them.

[ThinkMinty]

I did bring this up, very briefly, in the guide.


Authority =/= the Government
There are other forms of tyranny besides governments, and they’re not any better. A Chaotic Good character isn’t going to look the other way just because a merchant, company, church, cartel, thieves’ guild, or other organization is oppressing people instead of a state. If you really mean it, it doesn’t matter what kind of boot is stepping on people’s necks, the boot’s gotta go.

A corporation or cult or other NGO of Beholders is just as Lawful Evil in praxis as a government of them. Evil Governments aren't bad because they're Governments, they're bad because they're Evil. This is plainly obvious stuff. If it's Evil for one system to do, it's Evil for systems to do, period.


The distinction lies in the verb "give." You do not GIVE antibiotics to the healthy, no, but neither do you confiscate them from the healthy just because you think somebody else needs them more. You ask, you buy, you plead, or you make increasingly persuasive (e.g. "more money" or "cooler stuff for barter") offers, or you go make some, yourself. It is only justified, under Good auspices, to take by force when the antibiotics have been acquired through nefarious means, which requires trickery, extortion, or taking-by-force from an unwilling producer.

If the rules are preventing me from keeping someone healthy with medicine they need, those are rules that must be broken loudly. Human (or more inclusively, sapient) life is more important than things. A Paladin could do that with their patron smiling down upon their virtue.


Liberating a slave isn't a theft.

Technically, it is, unless the slave was taken by the man from whom you're liberating him through dishonest means - i.e. "theft" of the freedom of the slave. I won't say it's WRONG, but only because involuntary slavery of an innocent is wrong; it still is Neutral at best if you don't compensate the slave's former master for the cost he put forth in acquiring said slave (again, assuming he did so without actively taking part in depriving an innocent of their freedom and enslaving them).

Slavery, which is by its nature intrinsically involuntary, is prima facie double-wrong with a side order of ****ed up. It is, liability-style, straight-up Evil to possess a slave at all. No being, none, no Gods, no Demons, no one in all the cosmos has the right to own another as they would a shovel or a shoelace. Possession of the slave plainly steals that person's freedom, which is the most precious treasure anyone has. Taking that most precious treasure is a deplorable act of cruelty, tyranny, and malice.

A slave owner expecting payment for having their slaves stolen from them and liberated is a slave owner who's getting a Finger of Death to the chops and a Disintegrate for dessert.

Getting into the why probably violates forum rules, but Chaotic Good, at least as interpreted by yours truly both in general and specifically for this guide...is more Oliver Queen than it is Mister A.

[Bohandas]

A slave owner expecting payment for having their slaves stolen from them and liberated is a slave owner who's getting a Finger of Death to the chops and a Disintegrate for dessert.


I think ypu're getting into neutral or even evil (depending on circumstances) territory with that finger of death. The Chaotic Good character would, in general, just give them the regular finger unless fired upon first by the other party.

[ThinkMinty]

I think ypu're getting into neutral or even evil (depending on circumstances) territory with that finger of death. The Chaotic Good character would, in general, just give them the regular finger unless fired upon first by the other party.

Finger of Death isn't an evil spell; it's Necromancy [death]. Does being good-aligned mean you can't ever win initiative without putting your alignment in jeopardy?

[Bohandas]

Finger of Death isn't an evil spell; it's Necromancy [death]. Does being good-aligned mean you can't ever win initiative without putting your alignment in jeopardy?

Generally you have to be attacked first, or have it be clear that you're going to be attacked, or not be able to resolve a situation peacefully, or if you take the extra time to resolve it peacefully innocent people will die or be maimed. You don't need all of these factors, but you generally need at least one or something like them I'd say.

[Seto]

Finger of Death isn't an evil spell; it's Necromancy [death]. Does being good-aligned mean you can't ever win initiative without putting your alignment in jeopardy?

Well, if you're a Wizard 13 and the slave owner is a Commoner 2 (which is likely), yes. I agree with you that, in D&D, slavery is Evil, and fighting to free slaves is absolutely Good. But keep in mind that :
- Slavery calls for undoing it, that's to say freeing slaves. Anything more (killing the slave owner after the slaves have been freed, or if they'd be incapable of stopping you from freeing them anyway), is not fighting slavery, it's murder.
- Slavery is Evil, but murder is pretty Evil too.
- In a lot of D&D worlds, slavery is common enough that most people who can afford it, own slaves (think 5th B.C. Athens, or 1st B.C. Rome). It's still Evil, but the owners themselves are probably Neutral, could even be Good people. It's socially accepted. Do you feel comfortable selecting 20 to 30 % of a country's population as targets whom it's acceptable to engage with lethal force? (Because make no mistake, in a country where slavery is commonly accepted, pretty much all slave owners will expect payment if you take their slave away).

If, of course, this is an even fight that puts you in the position of having to defend yourself or other people, using lethal force becomes a lot easier to justify.

[ThinkMinty]

Well, if you're a Wizard 13 and the slave owner is a Commoner 2 (which is likely), yes. I agree with you that, in D&D, slavery is Evil, and fighting to free slaves is absolutely Good. But keep in mind that :
- Slavery calls for undoing it, that's to say freeing slaves. Anything more (killing the slave owner after the slaves have been freed, or if they'd be incapable of stopping you from freeing them anyway), is not fighting slavery, it's murder.
- Slavery is Evil, but murder is pretty Evil too.
- In a lot of D&D worlds, slavery is common enough that most people who can afford it, own slaves (think 5th B.C. Athens, or 1st B.C. Rome). It's still Evil, but the owners themselves are probably Neutral, could even be Good people. It's socially accepted. Do you feel comfortable selecting 20 to 30 % of a country's population as targets whom it's acceptable to engage with lethal force? (Because make no mistake, in a country where slavery is commonly accepted, pretty much all slave owners will expect payment if you take their slave away).

If, of course, this is an even fight that puts you in the position of having to defend yourself or other people, using lethal force becomes a lot easier to justify.

To answer those in order:

By asking to be paid, they are asking if they can keep selling people. I disagree, vehemently, with the notion that people can be bought, sold and owned, which is why I have freed their slaves in the first place. They asked for my participation in the slave trade. My response is an affirmative no. By asking for payment, they have committed a new wrong, attempting to sell people they had no right to own yet again. Asking for payment shows that they plan to commit such viciousness in the future, killing them prevents this from happening.

That doing away with the slaver lacked challenge doesn't make it Evil, unless there's a point where dispatching Dire Wolves who desire to make my legs into lunchmeat becomes Evil because I'm powerful enough to stop them without much effort. The Dire Wolves are Neutral and I can fight them to the death at any level without my alignment being affected, so it's silly to suggest that dispatching Evil is Evil if I didn't break a sweat doing it. I'd say the Dire Wolves have a greater claim to being forgiven for being hungry than slavers do for committing slavery.
Slavery is Evil, and additionally it is an act of repeated violence against the slave. Slavers are committing repeated acts of depraved violence by owning slaves. They show intent to continue practicing slavery by asking me to pay ransom for slaves I've already freed. Killing innocents is Evil. Those who enslave are not by any stretch of the language innocent.
Yes. That it is accepted by a society does not make it Good. Are Mind Flayers Good because their society says it's okay to kidnap people and eat their brains? Of course not. Those who own and/or trade in slaves are Evil for doing so. The freedom and dignity of the enslaved people is more important than the stability and continuity of a society that allows such disgusting, wretched wrongness to take place.


Basically, I consider slavery a liability offense. By doing it, the slaver is an enemy of freedom and goodness. If they choose to waste their opportunity to repent by insisting I participate in their Evil by buying people from them, they don't deserve anything from me anymore.

[Bohandas]

Yes. That it is accepted by a society does not make it Good. Are Mind Flayers Good because their society says it's okay to kidnap people and eat their brains? Of course not. Those who own and/or trade in slaves are Evil for doing so. The freedom and dignity of the enslaved people is more important than the stability and continuity of a society that allows such disgusting, wretched wrongness to take place.


That's beside the point. The Tanar'ri slaughter the Baatezu and are still evil; and vice versa.

EDIT:
Additionally, I'm not saying the finger of death thing would make you evil anyway, I'm saying it would make you neutral; and not necessarily chaotic neutral, I'd say General Sharman was true neutral, possibly even lawful neutral.

[Seto]

Listen, I had several paragraphs written to answer you and adress several of your different points, but I'm tired and have trouble building a cohesive argument, plus I'm frustrated that I keep thinking of examples that I can't mention under forum rules.

So I'll keep it brief : I'm not saying that socially accepted slavery is not Evil. It absolutely is. But trying to eliminate a deep-rooted system by disintegrating random people who take part in it just because they've never thought twice about it (the leaves, to go on with my tree metaphor), is not only doomed to fail, it's also very objectionable.

Also, it's possible that we're arguing in the abstract without envisioning the same scenario. I'm picturing it like this :
ThinkMinty : - Quick, my friend, freedom is yours, run away.
Slave : - Well, life here wasn't so bad, but I'd rather be a free man.
*the slave escapes*
Merchant guy, confused at seeing his cook disappear behind a hill : - But... this man is my property ! I've got all the papers to prove it ! You better pay me his worth or bring him back, mister !
ThinkMinty : *Finger of Death*.

I have a problem (several, in fact) with calling that scenario a Good act (or even Neutral). Do you?

If you're interested in continuing this debate (I know I am), I'm open to doing it by PM or another medium where we can speak without disturbing forum peace.

[Segev]

If the rules are preventing me from keeping someone healthy with medicine they need, those are rules that must be broken loudly. Human (or more inclusively, sapient) life is more important than things. A Paladin could do that with their patron smiling down upon their virtue.

(...)

Slavery, which is by its nature intrinsically involuntary, is prima facie double-wrong with a side order of ****ed up. It is, liability-style, straight-up Evil to possess a slave at all. No being, none, no Gods, no Demons, no one in all the cosmos has the right to own another as they would a shovel or a shoelace.

So, then, you have a right to take the medicine from the wealthy apothecary without compensation, threatening his life if he tries to stop you, because you have a right and duty to save lives with that medicine. When he refuses to make any more because he is not going to work without compensation he considers sufficient, and you don't have enough wealth to pay him what he considers sufficient, does this mean you have a right to compel him with threat of death to make more medicine, since there are still sick people who you have a right and duty to save with the medicine only he can make?

Are you now a slave-owner, since you have decided to (literally or metaphorically) shackle this apothecary on the grounds that you have a right to take anything - including the forced labor of an individual - as long as you use it to save lives?

[ThinkMinty]

So, then, you have a right to take the medicine from the wealthy apothecary without compensation, threatening his life if he tries to stop you, because you have a right and duty to save lives with that medicine. When he refuses to make any more because he is not going to work without compensation he considers sufficient, and you don't have enough wealth to pay him what he considers sufficient, does this mean you have a right to compel him with threat of death to make more medicine, since there are still sick people who you have a right and duty to save with the medicine only he can make?

Are you now a slave-owner, since you have decided to (literally or metaphorically) shackle this apothecary on the grounds that you have a right to take anything - including the forced labor of an individual - as long as you use it to save lives?

You're ignoring (among others) the possibility of competing apothecaries making affordable medicine to undercut the business model that necessitated the theft. If he can't price himself reasonably, people are going to look elsewhere.

Also, that is a very ludicrous series of extrapolations to make from one theft to save one person. Your Objectivism is noted, and still boring.

[Segev]

You're ignoring (among others) the possibility of competing apothecaries making affordable medicine to undercut the business model that necessitated the theft. If he can't price himself reasonably, he's gone from b

Also, that is a very ludicrous series of extrapolations to make from one theft to save one person. Your Objectivism is noted, and still boring.

If there are competing apothecaries, you don't have a need to steal, apparently. Which undermines your whole argument that you're justified in doing so in order to save a life.

I was pointing out the inherent contradiction in your position that slavery is always 100% evil, but that you have a right to take something from somebody else because you decide that another person needs it more. Given that the original impetus of this discussion was the actions of a rich and powerful ruler extorting large corporations for goods she then misappropriated (whether on purpose or not), it seems disingenuous to try to turn to "but competition would make that not necessary" while claiming she's doing good despite the supposedly-competitive environment existing.

Either the hypothetical apothecary has a price-fixing power (due to monopoly or collusion with all the other apothecaries), or your theft is unjustified. But the moment you can justify your theft, you can (and have) justified at least one case of slavery, since the apothecary now owes his services to others at your demand, rather than his choice.



I am absolutely an objectivist. That you find it "boring" is less important. I find your logical inconsistency irritating. You don't get to start an alignment-based discussion, declare a moral position, and then only defend it by saying disagreement with your claims is "boring."

May as well be a flat earther claiming of your opponent, "Your 'round earth' theory is noted, but boring."

[zimmerwald1915]

Are you now a slave-owner, since you have decided to (literally or metaphorically) shackle this apothecary on the grounds that you have a right to take anything - including the forced labor of an individual - as long as you use it to save lives?
If I may, this looking to abstract principles and categories, rather than circumstances, context, and the realities of power, is entirely alien to the Chaotic point of view.

[Segev]

If I may, this looking to abstract principles and categories, rather than circumstances, context, and the realities of power, is entirely alien to the Chaotic point of view.

Untrue. "Chaotic" does not mean "unable to be philosophical." It does mean "context is everything" ... or at least, "context has the potential to change anything."

However, if you are going to have absolute ethical principles, they do have to be absolute. Chaos is not an excuse to say "my principles only apply when I say they do." That's Neutral. Even CE has principles. They tend to be "do whatever I want and screw anybody who gets in my way or doesn't like it," but they're still principles to which they adhere.

You also don't get to say "I'm Chaotic, so it's okay if my definition of Good hurts people, I can still be CG because I mean well and damn the consequences."

Absolutely, a CG person can believe and behave as has been outlined...but they have to be fairly on the low-intelligence and low-wisdom end of things to justify that kind of short-sightedness never letting them realize how they're taking actions that cause results their G alignment should make them cringe at. You don't give a pass to the LE Well-Intentioned Extremist because he means well by imposing his order ruthlessly "for the good of all." Similarly, the CN or CE well-meaning but short-sighted individual deserves to be faced with the consequences of her actions, and made to own up to them and recognize where her short-sightedness has caused her to act in immediate violation of her principles because she's not thought things through and brought her principles into autoconflict.

A highly-intelligent and wise CG individual can perceive the consequences of her actions, and should seek to avoid her principles coming into conflict with each other. "Chaos" means "authority is what you make of it," not "lack of responsibility for one's choices." At least, not alone. CE certainly means you slough off responsibility when you can; consequences are for other people and if you can make them suffer yours, great!

But, if "slavery is always evil," you can't justify forced reallocation of resources based strictly on "need" and not be performing evil acts, as opposed to merely chaotic ones.

[zimmerwald1915]

Untrue. "Chaotic" does not mean "unable to be philosophical." It does mean "context is everything" ... or at least, "context has the potential to change anything."
And "philosophical" does not mean "abstract" or "mechanistic." Neither does "intelligent and wise" mean "agrees with Segev."


But, if "slavery is always evil," you can't justify forced reallocation of resources based strictly on "need" and not be performing evil acts, as opposed to merely chaotic ones.
Slavery isn't a momentary relationship based on a taking. It's a long-term relationship based on devaluation, subordination, humiliation and exploitation. No one not wrapped up in abstract categories would call a mugging victim a slave of his mugger. Furthermore, it's not purely a personal relationship between master and slave, it's a social relationship that draws in whole categories of people. Who are the slaves? Prisoners of war, conquered peoples, debtors? Who are the masters? Conquerors, creditors, landowners? Breaking social relationships between groups based on subordination and exploitation, liberating them to relate as individual people, is what CG is about.

To return to the price-gouging apothecary, who does he resemble more in the slavery example? The devalued, exploited long-sufferer or the person taking advantage of a desperate situation (illness) to exploit others? Who really has power here? Who really needs to be separated from it?

[Segev]

Okay. So at what point does the hypothetical CG person who thinks it's okay to steal medicine to save a sick child say, "woah, I can't steal any more medicine to save this village, because that would be wrong?"

Let's make the industry such that medicine is always custom-made, so there isn't any to steal. The apothecaries all refuse to make the medicine for the sick child for any price the hypothetically-CG hero is capable of scrounging together. Is the "CG" course of action to steal from the rest of the townsfolk to get enough to pay for it? Is it to compel an apothecary to make the medicine? What level of violence is acceptable to enforce that compulsion? For our CG hero to remain CG, and not be violating his morals with some CN actions, or principles with some NG or TN actions.

[Segev]

And, for the record, "intelligent" and "wise" don't need to mean "agrees with Segev," as, if you actually read what I wrote, nowhere did I relate that to making the decisions I specifically would. I related it to how much you have an appreciation for the consequences of your short-term actions in the long-term. How well you were able to connect what you did to the results, both before and after. It was in refutation of your assertion that "CG" means, apparently, not getting into "abstract" concepts nor understanding the philosophies on which you build your principles, nor even necessarily understanding your principles.

I contend that intelligent and wise people will seek to understand their principles if they have any interest in upholding them, because failure to do so inevitably leads to so-called "moral quandaries" due to inability to properly analyze the situation, or to the almost clichéd scenario where [aligned] intentions lead to results you deem displeasing. (e.g. good intentions paving hell, or evil intentions screwing yourself over rather than winning you your prize)

So your ad hominem dismissal of my argument is not a particularly useful means of refuting my actual point.

[Keltest]

Okay. So at what point does the hypothetical CG person who thinks it's okay to steal medicine to save a sick child say, "woah, I can't steal any more medicine to save this village, because that would be wrong?"

When stealing the medicine does as much harm as the good theyre trying to do. A chaotic person doesn't care that the apothecary worked hard to get where they are today, only that "where they are today" means "withholding medicine from sick people because they want something." Yes, if they were to up and murder the guy for it, that would be evil, but that isn't a necessary step in the acquisition of the medicine.


Let's make the industry such that medicine is always custom-made, so there isn't any to steal. The apothecaries all refuse to make the medicine for the sick child for any price the hypothetically-CG hero is capable of scrounging together. Is the "CG" course of action to steal from the rest of the townsfolk to get enough to pay for it? Is it to compel an apothecary to make the medicine? What level of violence is acceptable to enforce that compulsion? For our CG hero to remain CG, and not be violating his morals with some CN actions, or principles with some NG or TN actions.

Yes, compelling the apothecary to make the medicine would be the Chaotic Good course of action here, possibly with empty threats. If the villagers could pay for it, obviously there wouldn't be any need to acquire it by other means, and actually using violence on them before the medicine is made is not doing anything to make the medicine available.

Having said that, an apothecary that refuses to sell their medicine to a town of sick people is an apothecary that is not able to afford food because they've driven away all their business. It doesn't matter if theres competition or not when you are refusing to sell regardless.

[Segev]

Yes, compelling the apothecary to make the medicine would be the Chaotic Good course of action here, possibly with empty threats. If the villagers could pay for it, obviously there wouldn't be any need to acquire it by other means, and actually using violence on them before the medicine is made is not doing anything to make the medicine available.Alright. Now, what if the apothecary calls your bluff and doesn't believe your threats are anything to fear?


Having said that, an apothecary that refuses to sell their medicine to a town of sick people is an apothecary that is not able to afford food because they've driven away all their business. It doesn't matter if theres competition or not when you are refusing to sell regardless.The "whole village" thing was more in the escalation example. Here, it's just one poor kid, maybe as many as a poverty-stricken immediate family, for whom he won't make this particular medicine, because he charges a ton for it and they're poor. Perhaps the whole village could scrape enough together, if they were willing, but they're not. At least, not enough of them are to cover the expense demanded by the apothecary.

Again, he doesn't believe your threats. How far are you willing to go to convince him your threats are meaningful? How far is "okay" without becoming, at best, a CN action?

[Keltest]

Alright. Now, what if the apothecary calls your bluff and doesn't believe your threats are anything to fear? Then you try something else. Bribery, vandalism (but not so much that he cant actually make the medicine), taunting him, badmouthing him to the merchants guild, coercion... Depends on who the CG character is and what resources the have. Remember, this guy relies on the village as much as they rely on him (I am assuming he eats food at least occasionally), so its not like the CG person is without non-violent leverage.


The "whole village" thing was more in the escalation example. Here, it's just one poor kid, maybe as many as a poverty-stricken immediate family, for whom he won't make this particular medicine, because he charges a ton for it and they're poor. Perhaps the whole village could scrape enough together, if they were willing, but they're not. At least, not enough of them are to cover the expense demanded by the apothecary.

Again, he doesn't believe your threats. How far are you willing to go to convince him your threats are meaningful? How far is "okay" without becoming, at best, a CN action?

Its the same deal really. He has cornered a niche market and is refusing to sell, so he isn't actually making a profit. Besides the financial difficulties here, nobody likes him to boot. Its not a good idea, and the consequences of doing so would almost certainly be enough to get him to change his mind. And if not, steal the recipe for the medicine.

[daremetoidareyo]

If there are competing apothecaries, you don't have a need to steal, apparently. Which undermines your whole argument that you're justified in doing so in order to save a life.

I was pointing out the inherent contradiction in your position that slavery is always 100% evil, but that you have a right to take something from somebody else because you decide that another person needs it more. Given that the original impetus of this discussion was the actions of a rich and powerful ruler extorting large corporations for goods she then misappropriated (whether on purpose or not), it seems disingenuous to try to turn to "but competition would make that not necessary" while claiming she's doing good despite the supposedly-competitive environment existing.

Either the hypothetical apothecary has a price-fixing power (due to monopoly or collusion with all the other apothecaries), or your theft is unjustified. But the moment you can justify your theft, you can (and have) justified at least one case of slavery, since the apothecary now owes his services to others at your demand, rather than his choice.



I am absolutely an objectivist. That you find it "boring" is less important. I find your logical inconsistency irritating. You don't get to start an alignment-based discussion, declare a moral position, and then only defend it by saying disagreement with your claims is "boring."

May as well be a flat earther claiming of your opponent, "Your 'round earth' theory is noted, but boring."

Owning another sentient being isn't evil?

You can't conflate the ownership of a sentient beings life, (the inalienable rights to think, feel, reproduce, pray, govern the general direction of their life) with the theft of what they claim is "their" stuff. It's a false equivalency. Ownership itself is a complicated concept for a eusocial gregarious organism. That is why we have things called taxes. Arbitrary estimations of how much you owe the society that grants you the rights of property. If you don't believe in property, or another culture's definition of it, you are not evil for disregarding all that cultural fluff. Those taxes go towards enforcing a principle of property rights. All of the things that a tribe has lies within its borders. The value of those borders is portioning control of the inherent value of the geography, (lumber, water, sanitation, etc). If you belong to the tribe, you receive this protection as well as the duty to contribute to it. It isn't theft to compel them to pay for it, is it? No, that is why you pay taxes. But taxes don't necessarily accurately reflect the amount owed to a society. The lumber mill pays the taxes on the land, but they don't reimburse anyone for the value of the wildlife in that forest, or the health externalities from their pollution, or the spiritual value of truly wild forest. But they have been a special permission to take those loans out against the other people around them by the government that originally took that land by force. Spending soul after soul to displace others for their land.


But the thing is; all of that is imaginary. No one owns anything. Ownership is a concept. And one person can disagree with another on whether or not one can own another human being, again, because what is the actual difference between a chimp and a human? A human and a dwarf? I happen to not believe that intellectual property is a thing that should be respected. To me, it's a market distortion. An arbitrarily enforced scarcity that makes one entity rich at the expense of everyone that it compels.

So, One can absolutely be pro-theft and anti-slavery. It's not a logical inconsistency at all. Because ownership is just a thing that people invented to keep others from touching stuff that they want to hoard for themselves. It is totally consistent to be on the side of denying others unlimited power accumulation. Especially if it is being enforced interpersonally rather than across entire societies, because systematizing any idea leads to oppressive distortions.

On top of all of that, there is the inconvenience that you don't get to choose your culture. You are born into your tribe. And you have to comply with all of the regulations of your tribe, including methods of redress, or it is expected that you have to pay for disagreeing with regulations that you never once had a hand in crafting. Right now, in the US, it is illegal to imbibe the smoke of a certain plant. A brash regulatory decision made years ago. Is it evil to simply not comply with that law? No. Because laws are just cages we put on people's behavior.

And all things yearn to be free.

[Segev]

You're assuming he's dependent on the town, that he has no business from anywhere else. That he's even in the town, and not, say, the nearby big city making things for paying customers.

So it is your assertion, though, that it is in line with Good alignment to run a protection racket-style shakedown. Even if this apothecary has never hurt anybody, and has, in fact, been helpful to the town in the past (when the townsfolk have been willing and able to pay for his services). This child's illness entitles you to abuse this man because he has skills you wish to force him to employ in the manner you desire.

Is that correct?




And I didn't make a comment on slavery being good or evil in the bit you quoted; I was pointing out a contradiction between saying slavery is always evil and claiming that coercing somebody into working for you against their will can be a good act.

[ThinkMinty]

And I didn't make a comment on slavery being good or evil in the bit you quoted; I was pointing out a contradiction between saying slavery is always evil and claiming that coercing somebody into working for you against their will can be a good act.

So this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html) is slavery then?

[Segev]

So this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html) is slavery then?

Same principle, certainly. It's noteworthy that the CG character felt the need to apologize for it; he recognized that it was not a Good action. He simply made the judgment that this CN action was for a G enough cause that he felt it justified. And still, he felt guilty about it.

Which backs up my central point: theft from those who've done nothing to cause the problem the theft is meant to solve is never a Good act, no, not even if you're CG.

[Larsen]

Same principle, certainly. It's noteworthy that the CG character felt the need to apologize for it; he recognized that it was not a Good action. He simply made the judgment that this CN action was for a G enough cause that he felt it justified. And still, he felt guilty about it.

Which backs up my central point: theft from those who've done nothing to cause the problem the theft is meant to solve is never a Good act, no, not even if you're CG.

But only CG would do theft in order to save someone else without gaining anything in return.

If an orphan risk death if he does not take some medicine and some aphoticary have it, a CG character might rob it.
Of course, they wouldn't rob innocent people if they could just buy the medicine or convince them to give it. But if the only choice is thieving or giving up on the orphan life, the CG won't hesitate.

Every other aligment (maybe not NG ?) would result in the death of the orphan (or try to gain something from the situation)

[Segev]

But only CG would do theft in order to save someone else without gaining anything in return.I disagree. CN is perfectly capable of altruistic activities, and even CE might do it if they personally liked the "somebody else." Maybe the sick orphan boy reminds him of his kid sister. Or maybe the sick kid IS his kid brother. The CE guy can absolutely love and care about friends and family; he would be perfectly willing to steal and worse for them. CN types will have a wider range for whom they might do it. A CN altruist would be a classic example of a guy with "good motives" who resorts to questionable-to-evil actions as his first (easy) recourse.


If an orphan risk death if he does not take some medicine and some aphoticary have it, a CG character might rob it.And said CG person probably will feel bad about it, because he recognizes that he's committed a less-than-Good act. And what if the apothecary doesn't have it, but can make it?


Of course, they wouldn't rob innocent people if they could just buy the medicine or convince them to give it.Nobody is disputing this.


But if the only choice is thieving or giving up on the orphan life, the CG won't hesitate.Oh, I think they will hesitate. They will try to find some other solution. But yes, they might make that choice. But that doesn't make it a Good choice.

Don't forget that CG people can take Neutral-aligned actions without necessarily "slipping" in their alignment. As can anybody of any alignment.


Every other aligment (maybe not NG ?) would result in the death of the orphan (or try to gain something from the situation)Nonsense. Even the LG character could perform the theft, and feel bad about it, without necessarily losing his LG alignment. A paladin might lose his powers, but that's not the same as ceasing to be LG. (And the paladin only would need an atonement; the CN action he took would kick him for the C, but not the N.)

And LN could do it, but taking a CN action would be most painful for him. All the Evil alignments would need to have a personal liking for the sick kid to be motivated to do it, unless there was something in it for them, but even they could do it.

Note that the CE and NE monsters who do it for a kid they personally like are also performing an act more typically good than they are used to; it's a CN act. But it doesn't make them stop being evil.

[Larsen]

You can't add something to the problem and then criticize the reasonning... I specified orphan to show there was no relation between the character and the dying.

No evil or neutral person would take risks (going to jail/making an ennemy of someone with useful abilities) in order to save someone they don't even know, without any gain in perspective.

Altruism is what defines the good alignment.

[Segev]

You can't add something to the problem and then criticize the reasonning... I specified orphan to show there was no relation between the character and the dying. Then it is, indeed, highly unlikely that an Evil character would act to help them. A Neutral one might, still, depending on his personality and how much it costs him, personally. If it's an easy theft for him to make, and he feels sorry for the kid, he might just do it. He certainly wouldn't feel guilty about it and apologize to the shopkeeper or apothecary.

A neutral one whose sympathies had been pricked is actually more likely to engage in the extortion, too, justifying it as the kid deserving it more and him wanting to do it. Remember that "respect for others' freedom as your own" is more a CG thing than a CN thing (and is totally not a CE thing at all).


No evil or neutral person would take risks (going to jail/making an ennemy of someone with useful abilities) in order to save someone they don't even know, without any gain in perspective.
Not true. It depends what they perceive the risks to be, and how much pity/sympathy they have for the kid. Neutral doesn't mean "never does anything altruistic." It just means they are less likely to do so. Making it a pitiable orphan kid does tend to push it to the "maybe" territory for Neutral types. You only get true callous disregard at all times from Evil. Neutral might be able to put it out of sight and out of mind, but if it's brought to their attention, they have to actually debate it. "Is it worth it?" "Can I live with myself?"

Neutral is not utterly selfish. It's just self-first. And an adventurer may not view "steal something" or even "extort the apothecary I won't have to deal with after this" as too much of a risk.

[Red Fel]

You can't add something to the problem and then criticize the reasonning... I specified orphan to show there was no relation between the character and the dying.

"Orphan" doesn't mean "no family," it means "no parents." You can still have siblings, cousins, even grandparents.


No evil or neutral person would take risks (going to jail/making an ennemy of someone with useful abilities) in order to save someone they don't even know, without any gain in perspective.

I disagree. There's one perfectly acceptable reason for absolutely any alignment to take a risk for a complete stranger. "I was bored, and it amused me."

Here's another example. In the Batman: The Animated Series episode "Joker's Favor," an ordinary man accidentally offends the Joker, and begs for his life. The Joker, in an uncharacteristic moment, decides to spare the man, in exchange for a favor to be collected at a future time. I don't think anyone will disagree that the Joker is classically Evil in more or less every sense. Choosing to spare a stranger - given the Joker's tendency to do entirely the opposite - for no reason whatsoever is out of character. And yet, doing so in order to extract a favor makes sense, from a certain point of view.

Taking a risk for a stranger, either for one's own amusement or for the possibility of future benefit, isn't entirely out of character, is my point.


Altruism is what defines the good alignment.

True. But Good doesn't have a monopoly on altruism any more than Evil has a monopoly on ambition. Good can act out of self-interest. Evil can act out of love. It's uncommon, and not wholly in their respective natures, but it isn't unheard of.

[Larsen]

To Segev and Red Fel:

Then we kind of agree on something at least : a neutral might help if he thinks there is not much risk/loss. An evil one if he gets something of it (either fun, thrill or debt or ...).

I just assumed that committing to theft is taking some non-negligible risks.

But I recon I might have mixed the action of "thieving the medicine to cure an orphan" and the reasons for it.



"Orphan" doesn't mean "no family," it means "no parents." You can still have siblings, cousins, even grandparents.
Well, when I give such an example, i expect you guys to understand that the orphan is someone without means to repay you for your help and that you don't personnally know. Not that he is your fiancee and also sole heir to the kingdom.

[Segev]

To Segev and Red Fel:

Then we kind of agree on something at least : a neutral might help if he thinks there is not much risk/loss. An evil one if he gets something of it (either fun, thrill or debt or ...).I definitely agree with that. I can't speak for Red Fel (though I would guess from my reading of his prior works that it is so).


Well, when I give such an example, i expect you guys to understand that the orphan is someone without means to repay you for your help and that you don't personnally know. Not that he is your fiancee and also sole heir to the kingdom.
Clearly not the sole heir to the kingdom; one rarely refers to the Crown Prince as an "orphan," even if it's technically true.

I see what you're getting at, but the counterpoint was more that the orphan could still be important to the character in some way. It's not entirely relevant, either, if he is, in terms of alignment. Helping somebody because you care about them is a Good act. It's rarely enough Good to tilt the Evil or even the Neutral towards Good alignment, because it's usually weighed against so much more non-Good stuff they're doing, but it remains a Good act. The other things an Evil person might do in the process may well be heinous, though.

In any event, the point is that non-Good characters might also steal for a "Good" reason. But it's still a neutral-to-evil act, even if for a Good reason.

[daremetoidareyo]

In any event, the point is that non-Good characters might also steal for a "Good" reason. But it's still a neutral-to-evil act, even if for a Good reason.

Theft is a chaotic act. It doesn't fall on the moralistic axis. It is typically ascribed as "evil" by those who are lawfully inclined but that doesn't make it so. It is highly individualistic, but so are wild panthers. A wild panter who steals prey from another panther's self described "territory" isn't evil. It isn't even neutral. It's a null stat.
That is why you can loot corpses.
Of goblin children.
That you killed.
And still be a Lawful good.


However, make that corpse an important or wealthy noble (even an evil one),
and all of a sudden it's morally reprehensible and therefor labelled evil,
Just because that dude had standing in society?
and it becomes graverobbing...
And now you can't even claim to be Chaotic good?

The CG guy who steals the LG guys' goblinbane longsword to keep him from killing more goblin children is somehow the moral inferior? But if the CG guy intimidates or beats up that same LG dude is not as immoral?

At the end of the day, denying others (and groups of others, like society) the unchecked autonomy to decide whether or not an individual gets resources isn't evil. And can sometimes that refusal to capitulate can be defined as good.

[Segev]

Theft is a chaotic act.Indeed.

It doesn't fall on the moralistic axis. It is typically ascribed as "evil" by those who are lawfully inclined but that doesn't make it so.Not quite so true. It can be a Good act under certain circumstances. Those circumstances generally involve the current possessor of the item having come by it unrighteously. Stealing from an LE tyrant who acquired what you're stealing through force of arms or threat thereof in order to help out those from whom he took it can be a Good act.

Stealing from somebody who has harmed no innocents in the acquisition of his goods, nor condoned (tacitly or directly) such harm to perform that acquisition, is at best a neutral act. It can still be evil, if your theft causes real harm to the one from whom you steal it. It cannot be good; that person has in no way earned your forceful taking of something he sacrificed - no matter how relatively little - to acquire.


It is highly individualistic, but so are wild panthers. A wild panter who steals prey from another panther's self described "territory" isn't evil. It isn't even neutral. It's a null stat.Wild panthers don't have agency. They are not moral agents. Animals have a "neutral" alignment as a null stat, not as an indication of their actions being moral choices that balance out. They are non-examples.

A human who steals food from an elf when both are struggling to get enough to eat to survive would not be neutral.


That is why you can loot corpses. No, you loot corpses because there is no owner of that stuff anymore.

Of goblin children.What?

That you killed. You monster.

And still be a Lawful good. Hello, Miko.


However, make that corpse an important or wealthy noble (even an evil one),
and all of a sudden it's morally reprehensible and therefor labelled evil,
Just because that dude had standing in society?Given that I have not accepted your prior premise, I am not going to bother to argue this point, as it rests on already-rejected claims.

and it becomes graverobbing...I believe adventurers refer to this as "dungeon crawling."

And now you can't even claim to be Chaotic good? Sure you can! If the noble you killed deserved to be killed for the evils he perpetuated on others, and there's nobody your morals indicate has a better claim and/or greater need for his stuff. By the point you're killing entire families for their evil deeds, you've more or less determined they have no right to property since they've no right to even their own lives.


The CG guy who steals the LG guys' goblinbane longsword to keep him from killing more goblin children is somehow the moral inferior? But if the CG guy intimidates or beats up that same LG dude is not as immoral? I suspect that the guy killing goblin children is not LG. And you're erecting a strawman here, anyway: none of the examples prior to this have involved active harm being committed by the one from whom the item is being stolen. Of course you can take away a weapon from a murderer to stop him from killing more innocents, just as you can imprison or kill said murderer for the same reason, and retain a good alignment.


At the end of the day, denying others (and groups of others, like society) the unchecked autonomy to decide whether or not an individual gets resources isn't evil. And can sometimes that refusal to capitulate can be defined as good.I'm honestly not positive what you're trying to say here, but given the tenor of the discussion and your prior statements and claims, I am inclined to assume you mean something along the lines of: "It is within the realm of Good actions to unilaterally decide that you know better what to do with resources somebody else created or sacrificed their time and effort to acquire, even if they hurt nobody in its acquisition, and thus take it from them to use how you see fit."

If that's not what you mean, please feel free to correct me.

I patently disagree. It is at best Neutral to act on such a judgment. It is often Evil.

[LastCenturion]

Thanks for the guide! I was actually just thinking of the best way to describe chaotic alignments to my friend who's just starting playing, and this was great. I'm taking out of this "You don't need a why; others need a why not". Hope you don't mind?

Also, TPBM, I disagree entirely. The way that alignment is phrased, at least in 3.5 RAW, theft is an evil act unless the theftee is evil themselves. I'm away from my books at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that theft doesn't even affect the chaos/law axis of alignment. For something like the fifth time this thread, we enter a straw man fallacy, where people aren't actually rebutting arguments, merely debating points that seem very similar to other points but are completely different. Case in point, "CG will help orphans." "So will CE, if the orphan is their friend". Keep in mind that the first person said nothing about personal relationships. From that, most people in a neutral perspective would see it as "unrelated". Most opposing viewpoints, however, would see it as "relationship undefined" so as to have an argument against the point, or something similar to the point.

TL;DR There are so many bad arguments flying here that you can probably just ignore all rebuttals past the second page. Nice guide, OP.

[Bohandas]

Theft is a chaotic act.


What if it's a carefully planned and premeditated theft like in Ocean's Eleven?

[Red Fel]

What if it's a carefully planned and premeditated theft like in Ocean's Eleven?

Then it's a carefully planned and premeditated Chaotic act.

Chaotic doesn't mean "unable to plan."

[Keltest]

Then it's a carefully planned and premeditated Chaotic act.

Chaotic doesn't mean "unable to plan."

Unless youre a demon in the Blood War, apparently. Not that im complaining, Evil's ridiculously self destructive tendencies serve everyone.

[Segev]

Nonsense. Evil isn't self-destructive. Stupidity is. The...advantage...that Good and Law have is that the stupid who subscribe to them are blindly following optimal group dynamics. While this leads to its own problems, because blind adherence to anything inevitably will, it has an overall positive aggregate effect on the group. Evil and Chaos are perfectly capable of planning, of rational, enlightened self-interest and cooperation. The trouble is that it takes real intelligence to understand things at a depth required to appreciate them. The stupid and foolish of Chaos and Evil are short-sighted, impulsive, and prone to actions which are self-destructive because they think that morals are for chumps, and therefore they have no value whatsoever. Which, of course, leads to them making enemies, destroying resources they could have otherwise exploited, etc.

Which is why the unfortunately obvious stupid-evil and chaotic-stupid give the two alignment bands such a poor reputation.

[ThinkMinty]

Then it's a carefully planned and premeditated Chaotic act.

Chaotic doesn't mean "unable to plan."

Agreed. Particularly, Chaotic is good with changing the plans when the situation changes.

[Keltest]

Something I would add is a caution somewhere that being chaotic is not the same thing as being a compulsive rule breaker. It is a perfectly valid way to play the alignment, but it isn't the only way to be chaotic. Not every rule is out to oppress your personal freedom. Some do legitimately protect people (ie anti-slavery laws), or at least try to. Furthermore, laws tend to have enforcers, and while you might not care about the law, you do care about the people willing to beat you up over it. Youre allowed to be intelligent in your unlawfulness. Prepare to deal with the swarm before poking the hornet's nest, and judge whether the fallout from breaking the law doesn't land you in a worse situation than when you were following it.

[ThinkMinty]

Something I would add is a caution somewhere that being chaotic is not the same thing as being a compulsive rule breaker. It is a perfectly valid way to play the alignment, but it isn't the only way to be chaotic. Not every rule is out to oppress your personal freedom. Some do legitimately protect people (ie anti-slavery laws), or at least try to. Furthermore, laws tend to have enforcers, and while you might not care about the law, you do care about the people willing to beat you up over it. Youre allowed to be intelligent in your unlawfulness. Prepare to deal with the swarm before poking the hornet's nest, and judge whether the fallout from breaking the law doesn't land you in a worse situation than when you were following it.

This is very true. Chaotic alignments aren't a straightjacket, and laws that make people free (like an anti-slavery law) aren't the problem. Not caring about the law/the rules doesn't mean breaking 'em just because you can, it means they don't factor into your decisions in a significant way.

[Segev]

Absolutely. Chaotic is about not respecting authority outside yourself. This doesn't mean you can't respect others for reasons aside from their authority. It doesn't even mean you can't, for reasons that you deem good, cede your authority on specific matters or in specific cases (e.g. trusting that the medic knows how to do this surgery and that you should just do what he says in order to help him out to save the patient's life). But you won't blindly obey against your own instincts when you don't have reasons stronger than "this guy's the boss" or "the rules say so" to do so. Chaotic people always rely on their own judgment, even if it's just judgment as to whether or not the "authority" figure's orders are worth following This Time.

Lawful types, on the other hand, have a great deal of respect for authority and pre-established rules. They will NOT automatically trust their own judgment and "gut instincts" over tried and true rules or the commands of those with authority to issue them.

Both Lawful and Chaotic types can be reliable, but the Lawful type will be so because he knows his place in the hierarchy, knows his role, and does as he's told by the legitimate authority-figure. The Chaotic type is reliable if you know his personality and his judgments and what he values. They're harder to predict, but they still can be relied upon if you know them well enough.

[ThinkMinty]

Does anyone have a link to the superthread? I want to link to it in the guide.

[Seto]

There's a link in my guide (which in turn is in my sig). I'd copy-paste it for you, but I'm on my phone...

[Fuzzy McCoy]

Ask and ye shall receive. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread

[Bohandas]

Then it's a carefully planned and premeditated Chaotic act.

Chaotic doesn't mean "unable to plan."

Yes, but it does imply disorgsnization. And likeliness to deviate from plans and possibly plans that go to questionmarks like the underpants gnomes

[Abithrios]

Yes, but it does imply disorgsnization. And likeliness to deviate from plans and possibly plans that go to questionmarks like the underpants gnomes

I think this is one of those areas in which you don't have to check off every item on the list of chaotic traits to be considered chaotic overall.

[Segev]

Yes, but it does imply disorgsnization. And likeliness to deviate from plans and possibly plans that go to questionmarks like the underpants gnomes

It implies disorganization mainly because the Law/Chaos divide emphasizes a distinction between rigidity and randomness. The thing is, though, that Chaotic organizations are not a misnomer nor a contradiction in terms. A chaotic organization just has defining principles, sets of guidelines or "best practices," and a hierarchy that is typically just solid enough that, if disputes arise, there's somebody to make a final decision.

Chaotic organizations are highly adaptive, tend to operate with a great deal of independence given to the most on-the-ground actors, and rely heavily on firm understanding of goals so that everybody can work towards them. They often abandon rules that clearly don't help them out, or even which seem to be in the way, and they tend to reward "initiative" if it works. This will vary, of course, since finding patterns in chaos is possible but not 100% reliable; some will punish "initiative" if it was unacceptably risky, even if it worked, or if it showed a moral failing (too kind, revealing weakness in CE, or too cruel and callous to be tolerated in CG, for instance).

Plans made by chaotic types will tend to be strongly goal-oriented, and only weakly process-oriented. They may well be intricate in detail for particularly tricky things, with rigid timings, even, but they will lend themselves more towards Xanatos Speed Chess than towards clockwork precision. More than Lawful types, they will NEED communication of changing parameters if there is a lot of interconnected dependence. (Lawful types can get by on knowing precise timings and relying on everybody doing things EXACTLY according to procedure.)

[Bohandas]

Regarding the "revolutionary" examples, I see Huey Freeman (as well as his creator, Aaron McGruder) as more of a Don Quixote figure

[Eladrinblade]

Trithereon needs to be on the deity list. He's archetypical CG, and it's an affront that he wasn't in the phb.

[Boogastreehouse]

*


Theft is a chaotic act.


I hereby invoke the Indy example. Indiana Jones would steal an artifact from a corrupt archeologist like Belloq, or from a bunch of evil Nazis.

What is his motivation? "That relic belongs in a museum!"

That sounds like a very Lawfully-oriented action to me.


*

[AvatarVecna]

While Indiana Jones is almost an archetypal Lawful Good character, stealing is a Chaotic action that is being justified by 1) being for the Greater Good keeping a dangerous/important artifact out of the hands of Lawful Evil goons, and 2) doing a crime thing to Nazis almost universally doesn't count as doing a crime thing, as far as most movies are concerned; theft, murder, torture...about the only crime thing done in movies that would be horrible if it wasn't be done to Nazis that hasn't been done to my knowledge is non-consensual sex (although I'm sure it's happened at some point, and I'm only slightly less sure that the "raping the Nazi" scene is being inexplicably played for comedy).

EDIT: I literally thought of an example for a "Nazi getting raped" scene being played for comedy just as I was hitting the Post button: in the parody movie "Top Secret", a Nazi spy who insisted on being the rear end part of a two-man cow outfit ends up getting mounted by a bull.

[Boogastreehouse]

*

Hmm, I see what you're saying, but the more I think about it, the more I think that lawful theft might be a real thing (and I'm not referring to taxes).

If a lawful person has an occupation that involves breaking and entering and theft, but only under very specific conditions, then perhaps the theft is a Lawful act.

I just thought of another possible example of lawful breaking and entering and theft: a professional spy.


*

[Segev]

I hereby invoke the Indy example. Indiana Jones would steal an artifact from a corrupt archeologist like Belloq, or from a bunch of evil Nazis.

What is his motivation? "That relic belongs in a museum!"

That sounds like a very Lawfully-oriented action to me.

"Theft is a chaotic act" is a simplification of a slightly more complicated concept: the notion of rightful ownership. Everybody has some level of conception of this (to the point where races/cultures which lack this concept are called out specifically; it is an alien aspect of them). Even real-world human cultures which have highly communal notions of property have a concept of "ours," as broken down to the family or tribal level.

Chaotic people, even, tend to recognize that there IS a 'rightful owner' of something. They may base it on a number of vague factors that add up to "whoever I think deserves it the most," but it's there. What tends to make a Chaotic person Chaotic in this respect is the highly situational notion they apply to it.

Possession being 9/10 of ownership tends to be where we get the notion that taking something from an "unrightful" owner is theft. It can be argued that it is not theft if one has the authority to do it.

Chaotic people don't CARE about authority; they'll take it if they think it's the right thing to do (where "the right thing" may mean more about "I want it and can get away with it" than "morally right"). Lawful people will seek to restore unrightfully-held property to the possession of its lawful owner. While most tend to think they should thus do this in broad daylight with open declaration of what they're doing and why, backed up with the force of law (and arms), a Lawful rogue could just as easily simply snatch it on the authority he knows he possesses under the law.

The biggest key is that they don't really consider it "theft." No more than the tax collector considers tax collection to be banditry. (If you think about it, the man who walks up and tells you to give him your property because it rightfully belongs to the group he represents, and who backs it up with armed men who will do unpleasant things to you while they take it by force if you don't cooperate, is functionally the same from your perspective, if you only respect authority due to force of arms, if he's representing the lawful lord of the land or representing the outlaw band that happens to rove this region.)

So Indy isn't stealing, technically. He's engaged in lawful activity to stop lawbreakers/enemy soldiers from doing lawless activities.



There's also the whole "all's fair in war" clause which tends to crop up in most lawful groups. Honor rules and rules of warfare may exist, but they're almost invariably different than rules outside of war. And Indy is definitely facing enemies on the other side of a war-like conflict.

[Boogastreehouse]

*

I'll buy that.

Very well thought-out breakdown of what I considered to be a tricky concept. I often find Law/Chaos debates to be harder to navigate than Good/Evil ones.


*