Why is Alignment a Grid, Not a Gradient

[GreatWyrmGold]

On another website, I'm having a discussion about how alignment works in D&D. The other person seems convinced that alignment is a linear scale, with LG above NG above CG presumably above the neutral alignments presumably above LE above NE above CE. IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

[Zanos]

LG is not "more good" than CG any more than LE is "less evil" than CE.

The capacity for good or evil is equal among those spheres. He should keep in mind that the leader of a LE Empire is likely responsible for far more atrocities than the CE serial killer.

[P.F.]

No. No one has ever successfully used argument or logic to convince anyone of anything on the internet. However, the sheer volume of rules which describe alignment as being on two axes ("moral" for good/evil and "ethical" for law chaos) and the associated examples (such as the "one step" rule for clerics whose alignments differ from that of their deities) should be enough to convince yourself that you aren't crazy, the other person is simply wrong.

[Name1]

Well, to make it short, you could say that Ottis Toole is CE, being a serial killer, and Adolf Hitler is LE, being a dictator.
Now ask him: Who did worse things?

Of course, that doesn't make your point right, just his wrong.
The again, going right with the alignment system may require a divine spellcaster capable of level 9 spells... or a shadowcraft mage.

[BowStreetRunner]

You could point out that the alignments are essentially a set of keyword qualities that characters may possess. They either have them or they don't. There are two axes. On one axis you have Good > Neutral > Evil and on the other axis you have Lawful > Neutral > Chaotic. Every character must select one of the three options on each axis and this becomes their alignment (with the L>N>C axis coming before the G>N>E axis when naming their alignment).

[KillianHawkeye]

Maybe their first exposure to D&D was from 4th Edition and they just don't know any better?

[Erit]

Maybe their first exposure to D&D was from 4th Edition and they just don't know any better?

The most likely option. I know it was the case for me, and I couldn't make sense of the change in mechanics coupled with the adherence to naming conventions. My friend being determined to explain it as "Are you Republican or Democrat?" didn't help matters, but said friend is an idiot anyway.

[Darrin]

IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

No. The biggest, longest threads on this forum tend to be about alignment, because everyone can argue their own personal interpretation until the heatdeath of the universe and none of it ever changes anyone's mind one way or the other. (You can free up a lot of time for yourself by just ignoring any alignment-related threads.)

That being said... the "Four Corners" diagram that Gygax put in the AD&D rulebook largely exists because he loved the books written by Michael Moorcock and J.R.R. Tolkien, and he had a very kitchen-sink approach to designing his game worlds. The framework that includes both the war of Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil scratched his wargamer "structuralist" itch and allowed for a wider variety of narrative conflict in his world.

There's no compelling or over-arching reason to have either a two-axis or one-axis alignment system other than "to tell more interesting stories". That's all it's really there for. You can use it for other things (influencing player behavior, NPC motivation, etc.), but consistent implementation gets really messy and complicated.

[Troacctid]

The designers made a conscious choice to use a grid rather than a gradient in order to allow game mechanics to care about alignment in certain ways that would not work with a sliding scale.

[Deophaun]

For a fluff explanation, point him to the story of the Pact Primeval in the Fiendish Codex II:

On that day, the deities began to see that law and chaos were not the only principles in the universe. Good and evil were natural forces in the cosmos as well.
Law and Chaos were the original struggle. Good and Evil came later. And it was actually Asmodeus, of the not-so-bad Lawful Evil bent, who orchestrated the whole thing.

[P.F.]

Law and Chaos were the original struggle. Good and Evil came later. And it was actually Asmodeus, of the not-so-bad Lawful Evil bent, who orchestrated the whole thing.

In fact, as I recall AD&D (i.e., 1st edition) had only one alignment axis: Lawful or Chaotic. Good and Evil were only added in later editions.

[Sapreaver]

Isn't that why it's so important that good never triumph over evil or vice versa because than it goes to the law v chaos war where angels will fight eladrin. Or demons constantly fighting devils and then the universe is destroyed

[LudicSavant]

On another website, I'm having a discussion about how alignment works in D&D. The other person seems convinced that alignment is a linear scale, with LG above NG above CG presumably above the neutral alignments presumably above LE above NE above CE. IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

What alignment is has changed so dramatically and so many times throughout the editions (and even within editions, or sometimes even within the same book) that there's little point to arguing what the "true" version is. There is no true version because the canon is self-contradictory. People are just going around making up whatever version they're comfortable with and then pretending that it's canon based on some sufficiently vague statement (while ignoring other statements inconvenient to their viewpoint).

That's the #1 thing people have to get past: Thinking that any answer on alignment isn't effectively homebrew.


Well, to make it short, you could say that Ottis Toole is CE, being a serial killer, and Adolf Hitler is LE, being a dictator.

This always really bugged me.

If Ottis Toole got promoted to dictator, would he stop being Chaotic in your view? If Adolf Hitler never got farther than being an angry rebellious artist, would he stop being Lawful?

Seems to me like people just automatically assume that anyone granted the power to make laws is Lawful, and anyone who does objectionable things without having such rank is Chaotic. That doesn't seem like alignment as a cosmic measure of a person's character, but rather a reflection of their rank in a given subculture.

[Deophaun]

This always really bugged me.

If Ottis Toole got promoted to dictator, would he stop being Chaotic in your view? If Adolf Hitler never got farther than being an angry rebellious artist, would he stop being Lawful?

Seems to me like people just automatically assume that anyone granted the power to make laws is Lawful, and anyone who does objectionable things without having such rank is Chaotic. That doesn't seem like alignment as a cosmic measure of a person's character, but rather a reflection of their rank in a given subculture.
It's the problem as framing it Law vs Chaos, instead of Order vs Chaos. Law and chaos simply are not opposites, so the whole axis is borked.

[Fizban]

There's no compelling or over-arching reason to have either a two-axis or one-axis alignment system other than "to tell more interesting stories". That's all it's really there for. You can use it for other things (influencing player behavior, NPC motivation, etc.), but consistent implementation gets really messy and complicated.
Which is a pretty dang compelling reason. Say a story/game has (at least) three components: the PCs/protagonists, NPCs/antagonists, and the the story itself (the direction the campaign pushes through it's themes and setups and such). All three can be at different viewpoints, and the more that are in conflict the more complex the story. So your PCs can be CG, but they're in conflict with LN antagonists, and the campaign is urging them to be LG*. Having two axis doesn't just give you the four extremes, it also makes all half-Ns more distinct because they aren't just N. And even N/N in the middle becomes more distinct, because it shows that even on these two axis they still don't lean either way, suggesting a more significant apathy or wishy-washiness. With 9 possibilities and at least three influences on the story you end up with a lot of combinations.

If you only have one linear scale then you can only even get three different points if you count "neutral" as a distinct perspective rather than just being in the middle. That's how you get those old school "I'm True-NeutralTM so I'm gonna switch sides every turn because balance!" types: an excuse to add a third viewpoint. There's only two extremes on a sliding scale, so they have to force neutral into an extreme to add complexity.

You can still have good stories when two of the three categories are already in agreement of course, there's just less time spent on those disagreements. It's actually preferable for a game that doesn't want to bother, like say, an old-school dungeon crawl. You only need a whole bunch of viewpoints for a more socially oriented game: without them your myriad factions don't have any actual disagreement as far as the game is concerned, and in a mechanics oriented game that's kindof a problem.


*For example, the campaign wants to be about improving an ordered but uncaring LN society into a LG one by slowly changing the leadership, but the PCs grew up on the streets and need to learn how to deal with the law even though they'd rather abolish it altogether. Note also that even in a player directed game there's still a campaign story/tone viewpoint: even if the players can choose their own path, those paths are harder or easier depending on the setting and mechanics. DnD itself pushes for violent conflict resolutions, which are inherently chaotic, thanks to it's focus on combat.

[2D8HP]

*sigh*

This again.

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)




illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)



THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.
There will be a test.
:wink:

[Morcleon]

It's the problem as framing it Law vs Chaos, instead of Order vs Chaos. Law and chaos simply are not opposites, so the whole axis is borked.

Yeah, but "Orderful" sounds silly. :smalltongue:

[Fizban]

There will be a test.
:wink:
Huh, nice to have such a thorough confirmation that 2 axis alignment was a deliberate choice and the "chaos=bad" simplification was rejected. There's only two bits that don't match up, the first: druids having to make human sacrifice and thus tilting towards evil, obviously something from older editions long since discontinued.

The second is humans tending toward lawful. This is wrong on two counts: one, because as the only point of reference is ourselves we must place the default human in the middle, the fact that we naturally form into groups does not indicates a tendency towards order (unless you want to include large swaths of the animal kingdom with us). Two, the vast majority of people even today really don't respect the law. They follow some because it makes sense, or to avoid inconvenience, but just as often they are ignored because there is no risk. When you consider a medieval based society, where it's even more obvious lawmakers have no accountability and far harder to prove wrongdoing (and thus more rulings are arbitrary), I really don't see a lawful tendency emerging. The primary lawful influence in our history would be religion, but in DnD there are literal gods of chaos so that's not gonna work.

[2D8HP]

It's the problem as framing it Law vs Chaos, instead of Order vs Chaos. Law and chaos simply are not opposites, so the whole axis is borked.
In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

[Jay R]

In fact, as I recall AD&D (i.e., 1st edition) had only one alignment axis: Lawful or Chaotic. Good and Evil were only added in later editions.

AD&D 1e, which was not the first edition of D&D, had the 9-way alignment. When I read the description of what they meant in the 1e PHB, it seemed to me that only somebody with an INT and WIS of 16+ would subscribe to any of them, since they were philosophical theories, not simple codes:

The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.
This is supposed to be the alignment of a ravening wolf. Nonsense.

The original D&D game, a few years earlier, had only one alignment axis. The alignment ends were called Law and Chaos, but in most respects, that meant Good and Evil.

A little history: Michael Moorcock wrote stories in which the forces of good (called "Law") were in eternal battle with the forces of evil (called "Chaos"). It was clear in the context of those stories that these were the embodiments of Goodness and Evil.

This idea was used in the 3-way alignment system in original D&D, because a system of morality or good vs. evil is a crucial part of nearly any fantasy epic, and therefore necessary in any attempt to simulate fantasy epics.

While the D&D alignments were called Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, the very few rules about them made it clear that they really meant Good, Neutral, and Evil. A high level cleric was a Patriarch if Lawful, or an Evil High Priest if Chaotic. The description of reversed clerical spells, and effects of clerics on undead, referred to evil clerics, not chaotic ones, etc.

But many players in the mid-70s, myself included, pointed out that "Lawful" doesn't mean "Good", and "Chaotic" doesn't mean "Evil".

So the developers at TSR had three choices:
1. Admit their mistake and change the D&D terms to Good and Evil,
2. Make the rules clear by explaining the gaming jargon and spelling out that Law and Chaos were being used in a specific sense of Good and Evil, or
3. Try to hide the mistake by inventing an unrealistic and overly complicated game mechanic.

For Gygax, this was always an easy choice.

[Grytorm]

Two, the vast majority of people even today really don't respect the law. They follow some because it makes sense, or to avoid inconvenience, but just as often they are ignored because there is no risk. When you consider a medieval based society, where it's even more obvious lawmakers have no accountability and far harder to prove wrongdoing (and thus more rulings are arbitrary), I really don't see a lawful tendency emerging. The primary lawful influence in our history would be religion, but in DnD there are literal gods of chaos so that's not gonna work.

Just wondering. What would you call custom? I'm not an expert on medieval law or anything. But I did take a class, and we talked a little about law.

The specific context was an English Village. And for the most part they handled a lot of crime internally. Land disputes, theft. Every man was part of a group of people, and if any of them caused trouble they were the ones supposed to find him.

[Elder_Basilisk]

In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

This was also the metaphysical backdrop for Poul Anderson's Broken Sword (though there nearly all the characters were of Chaos while in Three Hearts and Three Lions, most of the characters were of Law).

Really, looking at the history and literary (especially the pulp) antecedents of D&D is the only way to make sense of D&D's alignment system--particularly when you go beyond the one paragraph alignment descriptions and start asking why particular creatures or cultures with well developed descriptions have the alignment they have. Why are elves chaotic good? Certainly not because any depiction of elves has consistently fit the Chaotic Good description. Elves are Chaotic Good because elves are archetypical creatures of Chaos in Poul Anderson's works and are on the side of Good in Lord of the Rings. Why are dwarves Lawful Good? Again, not because any description of dwarves fits the description of Lawful Good. Dwarves are Lawful Good because they are Lawful in Three Hearts and Three Lions and (often) on the side of Good in Lord of the Rings. Why are barbarians Chaotic? Certainly not because the things that characterize barbarian life (tradition and elders, etc) match the PHB description of Chaos. Barbarians are Chaotic because Robert E Howard and Edgar Rice Boroughs generally wrote Conan (and Solomon Kane and Kull, et al) and Tarzan as the noble savage representatives of barbarians in the struggle between civilization and Chaos. (Things get a little more complicated with Conan as King of Aquilonia but while his virtues make civilization work better, they are still barbarian virtues while civilization and Conan's enemies are associated with decadence).

If you went in, tabula rasa and tried to decide why X and Y creature/civilization/etc have alignment A and B based on the descriptions, you will generally find that, to the degree that PHB alignment descriptions are coherent and meaningful at all (to which the answer is, "not very much at all") they suggest different alignments for creature/civilization X, Y, and Z than the book does and that the more the PHB description and the creature's listed alignment line up, the less credible the creatures' culture and behaviors are. (Drow are a case in point, the closer their description aligns to the PHB Chaotic Evil definition, the less credible its origin and continued existence become and the more credible a description gets, the more problems there are with shoehorning them into Chaotic Evil alignment).

[trikkydik]

The only reason for alignment is because D&D uses magic.

(But for the sake of the argument, CHAOTIC and LAWFUL have nothing to do with GOOD and EVIL.)

If the law is inherently evil, what happens to the lawful good character?

IMO chaotic just means the character does things in their own way. The lawful character follows protocol.
Both have the same outcome, just different means of getting there.


Can I ask you a question?

"Why does it matter if LG is 'more' good than CG?"

[Coidzor]

On another website, I'm having a discussion about how alignment works in D&D. The other person seems convinced that alignment is a linear scale, with LG above NG above CG presumably above the neutral alignments presumably above LE above NE above CE. IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

They must have played 4E, then. Or fallen into a common trap which is part of what led to 4E to make the design choice they did when reinventing the system.

I'd just write them off as beyond help, or at the very least, a trollish waste of time, if the words of WOTC about why each Good and each Evil alignment are the most good or most evil don't sway them.

[Extra Anchovies]

Why are dwarves Lawful Good? Again, not because any description of dwarves fits the description of Lawful Good.

I have to disagree with you here. Dwarves in D&D are quite often portrayed as orderly and community-minded, with strong cultural emphases on tradition and placing family and society above the self, which seems solidly LG to me. Granted, this portrayal is likely just as much a result of their being chosen as Lawful Good as it is a cause.


Why are barbarians Chaotic? Certainly not because the things that characterize barbarian life (tradition and elders, etc) match the PHB description of Chaos.

The issue here is one of nomenclature. "Barbarian" originates as a term used by the classical Greeks to refer to cultures that did not adhere to Greek ways of life, mocking them by likening the speaking of their non-Greek languages to just saying "bar bar" all the time. It was definitely pejorative, often used to deride other Greeks as being not Greek enough. So really, we should discard the term "barbarian" altogether. If I could change one and only one thing about third edition, it would be renaming the Barbarian to the Berserker.

The Berserker can, in third edition, be of any non-Lawful alignment. This makes perfect sense, given the Berserker's tendency to allow rage and instinct to control their actions. Acting on the impulses and desires of the moment is the essence of Chaos as an alignment, so a Berserker is someone who willingly takes Chaotic actions in moments of great personal importance (i.e. combat). Such a character could hardly remain Lawful for long, even if they followed a strict warrior's code or set of traditions; Berserkers who do so would be Neutral on the law/chaos axis.

Cultures that don't adhere to classical Greek norms would not be entirely composed of Barbarians, despite how the Greeks may have seen them as such. A culture with a Berserker tradition would highly value the Berserker along with the physical power and connection to instinct the class exemplifies, but such a culture would still have a large non-Berserker population. Berserkers are a warrior class, limiting their usefulness to times of conflict between the culture and external groups, and when no such conflicts are ongoing there needs to be someone who knows how to grow a potato or build a longhouse.


This is supposed to be the alignment of a ravening wolf. Nonsense.

Looking at the behavior of animals, they generally A) prioritize themselves over others and B) act on whims rather than principles, which puts most of them at a very solid Chaotic Evil (yes, even cows; CE does not require violence). It wouldn't make sense for Paladins to run around slaughtering animals, hence the rule that animal intelligences ignore normal considerations for alignment and are locked to neutral.

[LudicSavant]

People should really consider tabooing their words (http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/) when having alignment discussions (or any discussion where words have wildly different meanings depending on who you ask or in what context).

Really good words to make sure you are able to taboo (http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/) are Objective, Subjective, Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, Order, Disorder, and any one-word synonyms for those words, because everyone seems to hear something different when hearing those words... which means that people aren't actually communicating, which is why alignment discussions usually don't get anywhere.

[Fizban]

Just wondering. What would you call custom? I'm not an expert on medieval law or anything. But I did take a class, and we talked a little about law.

The specific context was an English Village. And for the most part they handled a lot of crime internally. Land disputes, theft. Every man was part of a group of people, and if any of them caused trouble they were the ones supposed to find him.
Dunno what you mean by "custom" unless it's what you just described. That system isn't any better, if anything it's worse because instead of one nebulous lawmaker you can be "lawfully" attacked by any member of the group. It can still be a lawful system if the members are supposed to act according to an agreed upon set of rules, but it's still just as easily ignored if you know you can get away with it. More likely that you won't since instead of dodging the guards you have to dodge everyone, but still. If there are no set rules and all disputes are judged on their own merits, you have a chaotic system. Either way I don't' see a credible tendency on an instinctive level, in my uneducated opinion.

"Why does it matter if LG is 'more' good than CG?"
Not sure who you're asking or why, but I'll answer: because it's not. Lawful systems are inherently bad at dealing with things their laws don't yet cover, while chaotic systems are bad a dealing with large groups. As soon as you focus down to a smaller group or individual, LG inevitably is less good than CG since CG will care about the individual context of every conflict while LG must apply more general rules that must inevitably harm someone for trying to do the right thing. Since stories are about small groups or individuals, CG is always more good. Seriously, how many stories have you read where the main character never broke any laws, bucked any rules or conventions?

The correct answer for what is best is of course Neutral Good. A NG society will have a balance of laws that promote the common good, while dealing with certain disputes based on their own merits.

[Mechalich]

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

This final passage is extremely important. Many problems I've seen with alignment comes from the idea, presented in some D&D sources and much more common from 3e onward, that all of the alignments are equally common or something. That simply isn't the case, at least not among humans or really any of the core D&D races. In your average campaign world something like 90% or more of the humans will be lawful good or lawful neutral. A smaller number will be inconsistent types who have trouble with rules and are neutral good or true neutral. There will be a minor faction of nasty manipulators and self-serving schemers who qualify as lawful evil. All of the other alignments will be very rare. Chaotic Good characters are genuine good hearted free spirits who are unable to fit into a lawful society, Chaotic neutrals are even less organized and the majority of people who possess this alignment may have severe mental illnesses. Neutral evil and chaotic evil characters who are humans are almost definitional psychopaths and sociopaths.

Alignment is a messy system and has lots of problems. It's conflation of mental health and morality is one of the bigger ones and something that has grown a lot worse in the past forty years as society has changed. The presentation of the 'neutral' alignment in D&D fails to map to any of the common religious-based moral paradigms that inform the moral philosophy of essentially all D&D players (even if you're an atheist, if you live in a Western country, you almost certain subscribe to a Christian-based morality), which makes dealing with alignment alien to people who think in a good vs. evil format - compare to the light side vs. dark side in Star Wars, which is equally divisive, but much more intuitive. And the alignment system also creates the perverse scenario where the ultimate victory of good is a bad thing - because it robs the multiverse of its soul - and this obvious makes a lot of people confused.

On the other hand, alignment has led to some unique storytelling in D&D and the presentation of the planes and the exemplar outsider races and some other cool stuff so I think it has ultimately been beneficial to the game, but it needs to be deployed carefully and any group sound consider carefully whether they want to use alignment at all in a given campaign.

[LudicSavant]

So, people have been bringing up Gygax. If you want to get a good picture of why alignment is such a mess, one need look no further than Gary Gygax's take on it.

Gary has made his views on alignment even clearer than that old article in numerous Q&A sessions, such as the following:



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



Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide :lol:

(Note: That "old adage" is an infamous slogan used time and again throughout history to justify the wholesale slaughter of noncombatants, especially of native American women and children)


An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...



Gary, seeing how you define Lawful Good, to what alignment would you ascribe the qualities of mercy, benevolence, and -- dare I say -- pacifism? Would you consider such traits Chaotic? Evil?

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment


With regard to pacifism . . . Only idocy or mental derangement could explain such absurd beliefs

Source: Gary Gygax's Q&A on OD&D alignment, here (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60).

If you ask me, the main problem with alignment in later editions is that they haven't retreated from Gygax's ideas on the matter fast enough (nor have the writers ever been able to agree in which direction they should be retreating).

[Tectorman]

The Berserker can, in third edition, be of any non-Lawful alignment. This makes perfect sense, given the Berserker's tendency to allow rage and instinct to control their actions. Acting on the impulses and desires of the moment is the essence of Chaos as an alignment, so a Berserker is someone who willingly takes Chaotic actions in moments of great personal importance (i.e. combat). Such a character could hardly remain Lawful for long, even if they followed a strict warrior's code or set of traditions; Berserkers who do so would be Neutral on the law/chaos axis.

What about Wilders, who gain extra benefits to their psychic abilities when they let their emotions run away with them (which, except for the psychic component, is exactly the Barbarian/Berserker's MO), and can be as lawful as any Paladin?

Or, to bring in a Pathfinder example, the Wild Stalker archetype for the Ranger, who gets rage abilities just like the Barbarian and may be as lawful as he pleases?

[Extra Anchovies]

If you ask me, the main problem with alignment in later editions is that they haven't retreated from Gygax's ideas on the matter fast enough (nor have the writers ever been able to agree in which direction they should be retreating).

My gods, I have to agree. The biological essentialism of "nits become lice" makes me shudder.


What about Wilders, who gain extra benefits to their psychic abilities when they let their emotions run away with them (which, except for the psychic component, is exactly the Barbarian/Berserker's MO), and can be as lawful as any Paladin?

Or, to bring in a Pathfinder example, the Wild Stalker archetype for the Ranger, who gets rage abilities just like the Barbarian and may be as lawful as he pleases?

In both cases, I think, the lack of an alignment restriction is an error. Note that I do not support most alignment requirements; the only ones I see as having any place in the moral-ethical grid system are "any nonlawful", "any nonchaotic", and "any X and/or Y" (e.g. Warlock). The former two are useful for classes that inherently have some sort of code (such as the Paladin) or that inherently rely on impulse and instinct (such as the Berserker), and the latter is useful for classes whose power is gained from entities of specific alignments (such as followers of specific gods).

[Calthropstu]

Op, it literally states it is on an axis, and gives a chart besides in the book.
Just point him to the page number and call it a day.

If he is still insistent, give it up. If he believes it should be that way in his games and he is running, good for him. I see little harm in it.

[Fizban]

This final passage is extremely important. Many problems I've seen with alignment comes from the idea, presented in some D&D sources and much more common from 3e onward, that all of the alignments are equally common or something. That simply isn't the case, at least not among humans or really any of the core D&D races. In your average campaign world something like 90% or more of the humans will be lawful good or lawful neutral.
Incorrect. While the vast majority of societies will be lawful (since people like big cities which are harder to do with chaos), the percentage of people who qualify as lawful depends on how much the society indoctrinates them, and now much it takes to actually ping as lawful. Or to mirror, many problems I've seen with alignment come from the idea that neutral is uncommon or somehow not the default.

A smaller number will be inconsistent types who have trouble with rules and are neutral good or true neutral. There will be a minor faction of nasty manipulators and self-serving schemers who qualify as lawful evil. All of the other alignments will be very rare. Chaotic Good characters are genuine good hearted free spirits who are unable to fit into a lawful society, Chaotic neutrals are even less organized and the majority of people who possess this alignment may have severe mental illnesses. Neutral evil and chaotic evil characters who are humans are almost definitional psychopaths and sociopaths.
Such as all of this. You seem to think that non-lawful people actively have problems with rules, which is not how it works. Non-lawful people don't care, but they can and do follow the rules when it would be beneficial to them. Even chaotic people can and will follow the rules when they have to (depending on personal ability), they're just more likely to break them if the rules go against what they think is best. The idea that Chaotic Neutral people are literally crazy is one of the most problematic interpretations there is and as far as I know is only supported by the Insanity spell being read backwards. That leaves evil, which may be soci/psychopathic by defnition, but that's it.

Unless you're talking about the fanatical True Neutral, which is not supported by the giant Gygax quote and no one has ever suggested that's actually a common "alignment." As I said above, I figure it's the result of people grasping for more options when stuck with linear alignment: even if the system had all nine by that point, many people would still be defaulting to single axis and ignoring the potential conflicts they could have been using, so they'd end up needing True Neutral a as a crutch.

Bottom line, alignment is not nearly so drastic for normal people as you believe. Most people care about themselves and their loved ones, but won't hurt others, that's neutral. Most people follow the rules when it's not harmful, but will also let things slide if it's not harmful, that's neutral.

The presentation of the 'neutral' alignment in D&D fails to map to any of the common religious-based moral paradigms that inform the moral philosophy of essentially all D&D players (even if you're an atheist, if you live in a Western country, you almost certain subscribe to a Christian-based morality), which makes dealing with alignment alien to people who think in a good vs. evil format
Well yeah. First you have the fact that two axis alignment has both morals and ethics, and second you have the fact that those are extreme moral examples you're supposed to aspire to. How many people actually go all out on the moral obligations they claim to uphold? How many do more than give lip service? Neutral does not need to be represented because it's what you get when someone's not at the extreme. Complaining that it's not extreme enough to map somewhere is missing the point.

And the alignment system also creates the perverse scenario where the ultimate victory of good is a bad thing - because it robs the multiverse of its soul - and this obvious makes a lot of people confused.
Wut? This sounds like the classic "if the angels win everyone loses free will," which is uh, not any part of dnd. That's what happens if law wins, which only connects with good if you're running the law=good single axis.

[Fouredged Sword]

Now, way back at the beginning of the 3.5 universe the prime god sat down and started laying out the alignments. He put down the center point for TN and sort shrugged and said screw it and just put the four axis just wherever he could reach. Now, being medium as the ideal size he could reach no further than the four corners of his reach.

That put 15ft between opposing corners and from side to side. Due to the prime god being lazy Pi=4 and the minimum distance (plank length) an object can move is 5ft. This means there are only 3 possible locations between any two points on the alignment axis.

[Kish]

I have to disagree with you here. Dwarves in D&D are quite often portrayed as orderly and community-minded, with strong cultural emphases on tradition and placing family and society above the self, which seems solidly LG to me. Granted, this portrayal is likely just as much a result of their being chosen as Lawful Good as it is a cause.

Also narrow-minded, racist (depending on edition and specific portrayal, often to the point of attacking elves despite knowing the elves aren't any reasonable definition of evil and torturing orcs and goblins for amusement), greedy, casually violent toward anyone who isn't like them (or toward everyone when indulging their racial tradition of drinking heavily), hateful toward magic...I agree with Elder_Basilisk, and would go on to say that if I took the general presented attitudes of dwarves in D&D, isolated from the role they played in Tolkien or their being designed to be player characters, I wouldn't hesitate to slap "Usually Lawful Evil" on them.

Which, since they are designed to be player characters, means I heavily change their attitudes in games I run so that they actually fit the "Usually Lawful Good" tag they have instead, but that's not germane to what's in the books.

[hamishspence]

Also narrow-minded, racist (depending on edition and specific portrayal, often to the point of attacking elves despite knowing the elves aren't any reasonable definition of evil and torturing orcs and goblins for amusement), greedy, casually violent toward anyone who isn't like them (or toward everyone when indulging their racial tradition of drinking heavily), hateful toward magic...I agree with Elder_Basilisk, and would go on to say that if I took the general presented attitudes of dwarves in D&D, isolated from the role they played in Tolkien or their being designed to be player characters, I wouldn't hesitate to slap "Usually Lawful Evil" on them.

D20 Munchkin PHB sums it up pretty well:


You love gold, ale, axes, and hitting things with axes.
You hate orcs, elves, dragons, elves, and outdoors - especially if there are elves out there. And there are ALWAYS elves out there. You know best what to do with metal, so demand all the gold from party treasure. When this is none, accuse the thief of making off with it. (If the thief is an elf, so much better. If not, perhaps you can accuse the elf of being the thief in the bargain.)

Kill orcs.
Kill orc men, orc women, and orc babies.
Kill them when they fight.
Kill them when they surrender.
Kill them when they're asleep.

If, by some chance, one of your comrades should let an orc live (probably that bloody elf again), find an excuse at the first opportunity. then kill him. Remember that torture - oh, that's a nasty word; let's call it something nicer - persuasion often loosens an orc's tongue. Of course, you don't want him telling your companions some unflattering version of what happened (e.g., "The dwarf did it!"), so then you'll have to kill him. Blame it on the elf.

[danzibr]

No. No one has ever successfully used argument or logic to convince anyone of anything on the internet.
lulz

I think the fact that the two axes are independent of one another is pretty compelling.

[OldTrees1]

On another website, I'm having a discussion about how alignment works in D&D. The other person seems convinced that alignment is a linear scale, with LG above NG above CG presumably above the neutral alignments presumably above LE above NE above CE. IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

1) 4E did use a gradient for some bizarre reason.


2) Unfortunately there is not such a perfectly convincing argument. Oh sure you can show the 3x3 diagram and the cleric-deity adjacent rule, however:

A 2 axis system does not require 2 perpendicular axes. (Take the axis X = 0 and the axis Y=-X/1000 for example)

D&D used perpendicular axes but does not explicitly say so. So if the other person gets pushed into accepting a grid, they can always tilt the L-C axis slightly (see my example) and discover a gradient.

[Elder_Basilisk]

lulz

I think the fact that the two axes are independent of one another is pretty compelling.

Compelling from a rules sense. They are independent because the rulebook says they are. But it's not very compelling in a philosophical sense--that's actually one of the major problems of D&D alignment as Fizban's argument for Neutral Good demonstrates:


Not sure who you're asking or why, but I'll answer: because it's not. Lawful systems are inherently bad at dealing with things their laws don't yet cover, while chaotic systems are bad a dealing with large groups. As soon as you focus down to a smaller group or individual, LG inevitably is less good than CG since CG will care about the individual context of every conflict while LG must apply more general rules that must inevitably harm someone for trying to do the right thing. Since stories are about small groups or individuals, CG is always more good. Seriously, how many stories have you read where the main character never broke any laws, bucked any rules or conventions?

The correct answer for what is best is of course Neutral Good. A NG society will have a balance of laws that promote the common good, while dealing with certain disputes based on their own merits.

Now, you may or may not agree with the particular solution of "Neutral Good", but it is quite clear that your answer to Law/Chaos questions has implications on the Good/Evil axis and vise versa. That is why actual human philosophy (you know, the kind that people who ask how we ought to live use rather than those dreaming up army lists for a minis or role-playing game use) does not actually distinguish between "ethics" and "morals" in any consistent way (the terms are basically synonymous unless you delve into professional ethics where "professional" is the operating context) and people do not use the terms or synonyms of law/order and chaos/disorder except in ways that are connected with good and evil. (Natural "Law" philosophy, for example, is a philosophy of what is good).

That is one of the advantage of 4e's alignment gradient: it is actually compatible with some actual moral/ethical theories (not all of them but some of them--natural law theory is a pretty good fit and utilitarianism can be made to work to the degree that utilitarianism works in any context) and is much more coherent than the 2 axis kludge that other editions use. (If I had to make a list of the things 4e got right it would be: alignment, standard action charges, move action shifts, the bloodied condition, and the warlord class--it's a short list).

[OldTrees1]

Now, you may or may not agree with the particular solution of "Neutral Good", but it is quite clear that your answer to Law/Chaos questions has implications on the Good/Evil axis and vise versa. That is why actual human philosophy (you know, the kind that people who ask how we ought to live use rather than those dreaming up army lists for a minis or role-playing game use) does not actually distinguish between "ethics" and "morals" in any consistent way (the terms are basically synonymous unless you delve into professional ethics where "professional" is the operating context) and people do not use the terms or synonyms of law/order and chaos/disorder except in ways that are connected with good and evil. (Natural "Law" philosophy, for example, is a philosophy of what is good).

I think you will find that is more to do with them focusing on the question "What ought one do?" and ignoring other axes.


That is one of the advantage of 4e's alignment gradient: it is actually compatible with some actual moral/ethical theories (not all of them but some of them--natural law theory is a pretty good fit and utilitarianism can be made to work to the degree that utilitarianism works in any context) and is much more coherent than the 2 axis kludge that other editions use.

Most of the moral/ethical systems I have learned about would be even better modeled with a multivariable moral-amoral-immoral gradient (since most do not cleave to Law or Chaos as being morally relevant for their own sake). Even Natural Law theory seems to fit a Moral-Immoral axis much better than a LG-CE gradient.

Perhaps this is in part because either the area deemed amoral is quite large or the system allows for multiple options in a choice to have the same moral value (utilitarianism) and thus having no moral obligation for one over the other.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I think you will find that is more to do with them focusing on the question "What ought one do?" and ignoring other axes.

I don't think that you will find much that is relevant to alignment discussions that doesn't boil down to "what ought I to do?" Maybe there would be "what virtues should I possess/what vices should I avoid?" but you don't need a new vocabulary or axis to do virtue ethics--it's a different method of approaching the same things rather than an approach to an entirely different thing.


Most of the moral/ethical systems I have learned about would be even better modeled with a multivariable moral-amoral-immoral gradient (since most do not cleave to Law or Chaos as being morally relevant for their own sake). Even Natural Law theory seems to fit a Moral-Immoral axis much better than a LG-CE gradient.

Perhaps this is in part because either the area deemed amoral is quite large or the system allows for multiple options in a choice to have the same moral value (utilitarianism) and thus having no moral obligation for one over the other.

I'm not sure why you would need or want an amoral axis to track behavior with no moral implications. If it has no moral implications, why do you need to track it?

But you're right: good and evil or moral/immoral works better if you ditch the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil parts of the spectrum. They do kind of work for natural law theory but even there the axis would be a better reflection of the theory if you just called the one Good and the other Evil. I should probably say that 4e made a marked improvement on the alignment system rather than "4e got alignment right."

[OldTrees1]

I don't think that you will find much that is relevant to alignment discussions that doesn't boil down to "what ought I to do?" Maybe there would be "what virtues should I possess/what vices should I avoid?" but you don't need a new vocabulary or axis to do virtue ethics--it's a different method of approaching the same things rather than an approach to an entirely different thing.
L vs C questions mostly involve morally insignificant* but personally significant differences. Some D&D players care about that axis, but the moral philosophers don't really care about the morally insignificant part. Hence why I cited the focus of those philosophers as an explanation.

*Although to know what is morally insignificant would require knowing what is morally significant. I do not claim such knowledge I am merely going off common moral theories.


I'm not sure why you would need or want an amoral axis to track behavior with no moral implications. If it has no moral implications, why do you need to track it?

But you're right: good and evil or moral/immoral works better if you ditch the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil parts of the spectrum. They do kind of work for natural law theory but even there the axis would be a better reflection of the theory if you just called the one Good and the other Evil. I should probably say that 4e made a marked improvement on the alignment system rather than "4e got alignment right."
I did not mean moral axis, amoral axis, immoral axis. I meant a moral, amoral, immoral axis (or many for complex cases).
Morally Supererogatory, Morally Obligatory, Amoral/Morally Permissible, Morally Prohibited is how my mind parses it.

Once you ditch LG and CE from the gradient, then you just have the G vs E axis. Sure, discarding a dangerously broken tool (D&D L vs C) can be an improvement just as much as fixing that tool can be.

[Fizban]

EDIT FOR MORE POST: because I didn't have time to fully figure out the post before work and now I'm home.

Now, you may or may not agree with the particular solution of "Neutral Good", but it is quite clear that your answer to Law/Chaos questions has implications on the Good/Evil axis and vise versa.
I don't follow. Sounds like you're saying that I've implied a tilted second axis like OldTrees1 was talking about, but that's not what I'm going for at all. The Good/Evil axis is the primary concern, so Law/Chaos are described in relation to it. A NG society cares most about taking care of it's people, so it leans lawful where that promotes the most good and chaotic where that promotes the most good. NG is better than LG or CG, and neutral or evil societies are by definition not as good for their people, unless you're going for some darwinian angle.

I think rather that you're referring to the previous part of my post you didn't quote as my "answer to Law/Chaos questions," but I don't see how those affect Good/Evil. Explain?

That is why actual human philosophy (you know, the kind that people who ask how we ought to live use rather than those dreaming up army lists for a minis or role-playing game use) does not actually distinguish between "ethics" and "morals" in any consistent way. . . That is one of the advantage of 4e's alignment gradient: it is actually compatible with some actual moral/ethical theories (not all of them but some of them--natural law theory is a pretty good fit and utilitarianism can be made to work to the degree that utilitarianism works in any context) and is much more coherent than the 2 axis kludge that other editions use. (If I had to make a list of the things 4e got right it would be: alignment, standard action charges, move action shifts, the bloodied condition, and the warlord class--it's a short list).
No wonder so much philosophy sounds like garbage then, people trying to force all of human behavior onto a single axis like that's ever going to work. I will gladly refuse any such simplistic theory.

Edit: to elaborate, now I haven't taken any philosophy courses or anything, just seen stuff in passing, but I agree that it sounds like they always have a very set scale of best to worst along a single axis. The way you say "actual moral/ethical theories" makes it sound like you have studied the subject and greatly value those views, but at risk of layman's bias, well when it comes to things like this I don't really take "professional" opinions any more seriously than I would anyone else's. You've got studies and surveys and research data for other fields, but (and I could be missing something) I'm fairly certain philosophy is mostly just thinking about stuff a lot, something I can do myself.

I was introduced to 3.5's two axis alignment back in middle school. Once I got past my friends' lol middle school interpretations, I realized it was a pretty effective system. Over the years I've seen many alignment debates, and debatated alignment/philosophy/politics with some players with extremely different viewpoints. Never once have the single point views from ancient philosophers made any sense, and with your example it's obvious why that is: they're trying to map humanity onto a single axis, when that's patently absurd.

Two axis alignment didn't just spring out of nowhere of course, like all things it's built on all which came before, including the analysis of those philosophers, and as far as I'm concerned has greatly improved on it. Refusing to update modes of thinking is probably some sort of fallacy, just because philosophers can't map their narrow alignment paths onto DnD's doesn't mean DnD's is bad.

Edit edit: my constant reference to single point/axis philosophical ideas is probably annoying given further posts below, but part of this probably has to do with how people have always presented it. Someone brings up this or that person who wrote something and then they wave a printout and most of it seems inconsistent or hardly even applicable to the discussion. When I hear "philosophy," it's like someone referencing a series of papers or lectures.

[P.F.]

I was wondering what other systems of coordinates we could use, besides gradient (linear/one-dimensional) and grid (cartesian/two-dimensional). So I slapped together this crude alignment chart (http://i.imgur.com/5rfzaxz.png) wherein r denotes the character's ethical orbit, and θ represents his or her position on the moral spectrum. Interestingly this depicts tripolar morality, allowing for Neutral (with respect to Good and Evil) to simultaneously exist both delicately balanced between good and evil and as far from both as mathematically possible.

Next, I think I'll try my luck with alignment vectors :smallamused:

[Name1]

I never understood why humans in D&D are neutral... their raciel deity (Zarus) is LE, why wouldn't they be?

[OldTrees1]

No wonder so much philosophy sounds like garbage then, people trying to force all of human behavior onto a single axis like that's ever going to work. I will gladly refuse any such simplistic theory.

Well, no, it is not that at all. Philosophy, even the area that deals with morality, is not about forcing all of human behavior onto a single axis.

Instead the Philosophy is divided and subdivided by questions. The area that deals with morality is pursuing the question "What ought one do?" without pretending to be pursuing "What is beauty?", "What is being?", "What is knowledge?", etc.

So Philosophy is the exact opposite, it examines human behavior through a bunch of difference lenses while pursuing the question those lenses ask.

And even if we were to push it further and question the examining everything of moral significance when pursuing a question about morality, this is not forcing all of human behavior onto a single axis because a behavior of moral impact does not entail only having 1 morally significant detail. Usually actions are complex enough that even systems as simplistic as utilitarianism would make separate comments about every part rather than only about the whole.

[Coidzor]

I never understood why humans in D&D are neutral... their raciel deity (Zarus) is LE, why wouldn't they be?

Because a Man chooses. A slave obeys.

The First Man wants Men to follow him and know his love of their will and ability to recognize the rightness of their common cause and manifest destiny, not out of the petty mimickry of the Elves or the rote programming of Dwarves and Orcs.

Also, y'know, he was invented a fair ways into the D&D dynasty.


Instead the Philosophy is divided and subdivided by questions. The area that deals with morality is pursuing the question "What ought one do?" without pretending to be pursuing "What is beauty?", "What is being?", "What is knowledge?", etc.

Aside from this thread, anyway.

[Agrippa]

I'm going to offer my 1st Ed. AD&D inspired take on alignment.

Major Divisions
There are two major divisions of four opposite points of view. Not all four are mutually exclusive, although each pair is mutually opposed.

Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between favoring the needs and powers of the group over the rights and freedoms of individuals. That is, Law dictates that collective action and organization is necessary and desirable, while Chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while Chaos promotes the individual over the group.

Good And Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of Good are human rights, or in the case of D&D/Pathfinder, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable and considered abominable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or the happiness others; the ends utterly justify the means.

A creature cannot be Lawful and Chaotic or an Evil and Good at the same time. These, and their reverses, are dichotomous. This is not to say that they cannot exist in the same character or creature if it has dual personalities or is controlled by another entity, but as general divisions they are mutually exclusive pairs. Consider also the alignment graph. If Law is opposed to Chaos, and Good to Evil, then the radically opposed alignments are Lawful Neutral — Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Good — Neutral Evil, Lawful Good — Chaotic Evil, and Lawful Evil — Chaotic Good. Some Lawful groups might, for example, combine to put down some Chaotic threat, for example, just as readily as Good groups would combine to suppress some powerful Evil. Basic understanding and agreement, however, is within the general specific alignment, i.e. one of the nine categories. These are defined as follows:

LAWFUL GOOD: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of Lawful Good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common good as best they can without cruelty or abuse. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring security and providence; but truth is of highest value, and life and its beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all. As with other Good alignments lies and deceit are to be used only to protect life, prevent needless pain or to defeat dangerous adversaries, never for self aggrandizement or petty spite.

NEUTRAL GOOD: Unlike those directly opposite them (Neutral Evil) in alignment, creatures of Neutral Good believe that there must be some roughly equal mix of regulation in combination with freedom if the best is to be brought to the world — the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

CHAOTIC GOOD: To the Chaotic Good individual, freedom and independence are as important as life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness. Strict laws and social norms beyond strictures and injunctions against unprovoked violence and theft, are seen as destructive to individual freedom, therefore anathema. Under this philosophy each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself and one of the greatest and noblest acts is to help others improve themselves if needed. Good works and charity are how free men, free women and all other free creatures seek to bring comfort and support to others.

LAWFUL NEUTRAL: Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government/society, whether that government is a dictatorship or benevolent democracy is of little consequence. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh most moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost, so long as he doesn't go to far, or a soldier who almost never questions his orders are good examples of Lawful Neutral behavior. Those of Lawful Neutral alignment impose or support such order with neither kindness nor cruelty, neither compassion nor brutality.

TRUE NEUTRAL: True Neutral characters believe in the ultimate and self fulfilling balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, True Neutral characters are extremely rare. True Neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces and philosophies of either Good or Evil, Law or Chaos. They have no concern whether these forces or mindsets remain in balanced contention, for they believe that this is the way things have and will always be.

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: This view of the cosmos holds that absolute freedom is necessary. Whether the individual exercising such freedom chooses to do good or evil is of little to no concern. They neither go out the way to help or harm others, they simply choose to live life freely and on their own terms in defiance of all external authority.

LAWFUL EVIL: Obviously, not all order is good, nor is all civic mindedness good. Lawful Evil creatures believe that the group is best served by brutally crushing all enemies, cutting the weak and useless out of society, including those who disagree with your methods, and beating your public into submission. Since free will allows for choice of, or at least what those of Lawful Evil alignment would deem evil, the logical conclusion of the Lawful Evil alignment is that free will is an evil of itself.

NEUTRAL EVIL: Similar to the Neutral Good alignment, that of Neutral Evil holds that neither groups nor individuals have any great meaning. This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything else.

CHAOTIC EVIL: The Chaotic Evil creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit, or that freedom itself is so important that life, especially the lives of others, is meaningless compared to it.

How is the fascism/totalitarianism of Lawful Evil morally superior to the extreme egoism/freedom at any cost mentality of Chaotic Evil?

[Fizban]

Last post edited for more stuff, this post edited for more stuff, everybody gets stuff!

Well, no, it is not that at all. Philosophy, even the area that deals with morality, is not about forcing all of human behavior onto a single axis.

Instead the Philosophy is divided and subdivided by questions. The area that deals with morality is pursuing the question "What ought one do?" without pretending to be pursuing "What is beauty?", "What is being?", "What is knowledge?", etc.

So Philosophy is the exact opposite, it examines human behavior through a bunch of difference lenses while pursuing the question those lenses ask.

And even if we were to push it further and question the examining everything of moral significance when pursuing a question about morality, this is not forcing all of human behavior onto a single axis because a behavior of moral impact does not entail only having 1 morally significant detail. Usually actions are complex enough that even systems as simplistic as utilitarianism would make separate comments about every part rather than only about the whole.
My first thought is that focusing on a single question "What ought one do?" is inherently causing a single line. It's an open ended question, picking an answer means it isn't open ended anymore. Morality as I (and I would imagine most) people hear about it actually focuses on what one ought not to do, as once again very few people actually emulate their moral examplars, but they have plenty to say about making sure everyone else isn't stepping out of line. I sort it into two very simple statements, phrased in the same form: One ought to help others, and ought not to harm others. Presumably there is a similar root question for ethics, but someone said ethics/morality are mostly the same question earlier. If the root ethical question is assuming one state is better than the other, then of course people are going to line it up with good/evil every time.

Hmm, nah the more I think about it the less it matters that DnD alignment doesn't map to "actual" moral/ethical/philosophical theories. I just can't get over the point that if this game description of human behavior is complex enough they can't handle it, that just means they weren't very good to begin with. The thought process you've described is certainly useful, but unless I'm missing something (do my own research? bah) it sounds like it's not supposed to have practical applications (I feel like I've had someone tell me that before actually, that philosophy isn't supposed to have practical applications).

Both you and Elder_Basilisk seem to think Law/Chaos is inherently bad/broken/damaging somehow, but I've yet to hear any evidence as to why aside from "it doesn't match any theories I've heard." Why is this:

I did not mean moral axis, amoral axis, immoral axis. I meant a moral, amoral, immoral axis (or many for complex cases).
Morally Supererogatory, Morally Obligatory, Amoral/Morally Permissible, Morally Prohibited is how my mind parses it.
superior? It's because you've mashed law/chaos into it. Obligation is a lawful concept, while permissible is a more neutral way of saying "chaotic," implying that it goes against the rules but not so badly anyone really cares. Your scale goes Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral (or maybe just Neutral), and Neutral Evil, phrased/ordered in such a way as to imply law is better and with neutral as "moral", a LG or LN perspective (depending on how much you read into things) ignoring variation at either end. By cutting the corners off the alignment grid you can ignore questions of weather LG/CG is better or LE vs CE is worse, which is actually useful in the sense that yeah, NG beats everything and any type of Evil is bad, but you're still saying that law is better for no explained reason.*

So why is keeping those corners superior? Because by ignoring them you gloss over the fact that Good people disagree all the time based on weather they think problems should be handled individually or by agreed policy. It also ignores the significant difference between the evil person who acts upon whim vs the one who acts upon principle. These are not unimportant concepts, in real life or in storytelling. I don't see how anyone could say they don't matter.

*And I'll explain the reason: all these theories are talking about massive groups of humanity, which as I keep saying must rely on law to exist. This is not how humans are designed. The human brain can only recognize about 100 people as personally important to them, everyone else is generalized others (and that's probably a gross simplification, but I never felt like buying the book when I could read the summary since it's probably mostly about the leadup and methodology anyway). We are evolved from monkeys**, we are built to work in tribes of 100 people or less, and at that level there is no need to rule by hard laws because you can recognize each person as an individual and deal with them individually. It is only with agriculture and cities that we must rely on law to govern, and go figure, there's no room to support philosophers until you've got your cities on. So they look at humanity and see nations that need law to survive, and say that law, enforced order, moral obligations are best because they are needed to support the only system they know. In a smaller group there may be "laws," but they are not objective laws because everyone knows everyone and can (and will) choose to enforce or ignore them based on the merits of each individual case, the chaotic way.

**I see you there pedant, I'm taking liberties for effect.

[OldTrees1]

EDIT FOR MORE POST: because I didn't have time to fully figure out the post before work and now I'm home.

No wonder so much philosophy sounds like garbage then, people trying to force all of human behavior onto a single axis like that's ever going to work. I will gladly refuse any such simplistic theory.

Edit: to elaborate, now I haven't taken any philosophy courses or anything, just seen stuff in passing, but I agree that it sounds like they always have a very set scale of best to worst along a single axis. The way you say "actual moral/ethical theories" makes it sound like you have studied the subject and greatly value those views, but at risk of layman's bias, well when it comes to things like this I don't really take "professional" opinions any more seriously than I would anyone else's. You've got studies and surveys and research data for other fields, but (and I could be missing something) I'm fairly certain philosophy is mostly just thinking about stuff a lot, something I can do myself.

I was introduced to 3.5's two axis alignment back in middle school. Once I got past my friends' lol middle school interpretations, I realized it was a pretty effective system. Over the years I've seen many alignment debates, and debatated alignment/philosophy/politics with some players with extremely different viewpoints. Never once have the single point views from ancient philosophers made any sense, and with your example it's obvious why that is: they're trying to map humanity onto a single axis, when that's patently absurd.

Two axis alignment didn't just spring out of nowhere of course, like all things it's built on all which came before, including the analysis of those philosophers, and as far as I'm concerned has greatly improved on it. Refusing to update modes of thinking is probably some sort of fallacy, just because philosophers can't map their narrow alignment paths onto DnD's doesn't mean DnD's is bad.

Edit edit: my constant reference to single point/axis philosophical ideas is probably annoying given further posts below, but part of this probably has to do with how people have always presented it. Someone brings up this or that person who wrote something and then they wave a printout and most of it seems inconsistent or hardly even applicable to the discussion. When I hear "philosophy," it's like someone referencing a series of papers or lectures.


LAST POST EDITED FOR MORE STUFF.

Will edit to more fully respond later, but my first thought is that focusing on a single question "What ought one do?" is inherently causing a single line. Presumably there is a similar root question for ethics, but someone said ethics/morality are mostly the same question earlier.

I will address both of these in this post knowing that you will further expand the 2nd post later.

First layman vs professional:
In some fields, like nuclear physics, we use professional as a signal that correlates with the accumulation of a bunch of background and deeper understanding knowledge. In contrast I have found that increased exposure to Philosophy lead to understanding more positions rather than unlocking deeper knowledge. As such I don't see a barrier preventing the layman from conversing with the professional at or at least near the same level on a topic.

Second D&D as a filter:
You are coming to this discussion only exposed to a few perspectives. This does not impair your ability to discuss the topic and it does make finding what I would call "translation errors" easier.

D&D has a Law vs Chaos axis that is occasionally called Ethics. This is not the same word as what Philosophy calls Ethics. Philosophy coined the word first and the word meant/means Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics). I don't know the origins of why the Law vs Chaos axis in D&D is occasionally called Ethics, but it is probably a misuse of the word that became common enough to act as an alternate and completely independent meaning to the word. This is part of why I claim that Philosophy is not squeezing all of human behavior into one axis.

Let's jump into an example:
Let's pretend that you like ice cream and that having ice cream is not Morally Supererogatory, Morally Obligatory, nor Morally Prohibited (aka it is Amoral/Morally Permissible). Every once in a while you get some ice cream. Maybe you go regularly, maybe it is more spontaneous. Maybe you have a favorite flavor you always get, maybe you mix it up now and again. Maybe you get a single scoop, maybe you get a bowl with a mix of flavors. None of this is covered in the questions about ethics and morality because despite its personal significance to you, everything I listed is Amoral or morally irrelevant data.

What we commonly think about with the Law vs Chaos axis is a subset of amoral principles and biases that act independently of morality. The philosophic field of Ethics does not address this independent axis because it is amoral but that does not mean they try to collapse it into the moral axis. (If you play Magic the gathering I can name 4 more such axes that Ethics does not try to collapse)

Finally papers/lectures:
Yes, Philosophers tend to publish papers to journals in the same way Scientists publish papers to journals. In some manner these papers are like listening to the scientists describe the scope/methods/results of their experiment rather than listening to the media butcher explaining it. Although usually the papers are intended to only be referenced when they are applicable to the topic at hand. I don't bring up Newton's papers on calculus to a discussion about the application of CRISPR in genetic engineering. It is good to recognize how one might be biased, in this case I think the fault lies mostly with those that brought the off topic papers into your discussions.

[Elder_Basilisk]

EDIT FOR MORE POST: because I didn't have time to fully figure out the post before work and now I'm home.

I don't follow. Sounds like you're saying that I've implied a tilted second axis like OldTrees1 was talking about, but that's not what I'm going for at all. The Good/Evil axis is the primary concern, so Law/Chaos are described in relation to it. A NG society cares most about taking care of it's people, so it leans lawful where that promotes the most good and chaotic where that promotes the most good. NG is better than LG or CG, and neutral or evil societies are by definition not as good for their people, unless you're going for some darwinian angle.

I think rather that you're referring to the previous part of my post you didn't quote as my "answer to Law/Chaos questions," but I don't see how those affect Good/Evil. Explain?

Your argument for neutral good boiled down to: lawful structures have weaknesses and chaotic structures have weaknesses, therefore a structure that is neutral is the best structure to accomplish the aims of good. Therefore neutral good is better than lawful good or chaotic good. In short, I read your post as arguing that if you are really good and properly think through your positions, you should end up as neutral good rather than lawful good or chaotic good because lawful and chaotic alignments are inferior at realizing the good. If the argument is correct, a Lawful Good character is either Lawful because he has made a mistake about what the good is or because he doesn't really care about the good as much as something else.

Now, I'm sure in the alignment handbooks there are similar arguments for why lawful good is better than neutral and chaotic good and why chaotic good is better than lawful or neutral good. Regardless of which alignment wins, the point is that the so-called independent axes are not really independent. If it were really independent, then you wouldn't be able to make a case that Neutral Good is Gooder than Lawful Good or Chaotic Good any more than you can make a case than vanilla ice cream is morally superior to neopolitan.

My solution to that argument is not a tilted second axis; it is to discard the Law/Chaos axis entirely. Law/Chaos is an utterly incoherent mish-mash of mutually contradictory ideas which bear little resemblance to the way such alignments are assigned in game. That is not surprising given the literary antecedents of the Law/Chaos axis which are not consistent either (in Poul Anderson's work, Law/Chaos could be summarized as Christendom and Allies/Faerie and Nazis while in the Elric books, it is an explicitly non-moral and alien axis of conflict (whoever wins, we lose) that is depicted as animating the world-shattering conflicts of the books), and could not easily or simply be combined with a good/evil axis. You can use the two axis system to come up with arbitrary army lists, but it's not good for much else. If you need more letters to write on your character sheets, use Meyers-Briggs or something. Or use Vanilla/Neopolitan (it makes as much sense as Law/Chaos but has the virtue that no-one will try to take it seriously).

[Fizban]

Thank you for the explanations, now I wish I had some idea of where the law/chaos=ethics started back in the day, since it clearly isn't helping things.

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct
What we commonly think about with the Law vs Chaos axis is a subset of amoral principles and biases that act independently of morality. The philosophic field of Ethics does not address this independent axis because it is amoral but that does not mean they try to collapse it into the moral axis. (If you play Magic the gathering I can name 4 more such axes that Ethics does not try to collapse)
So I'm seeing two problems with Ethics/Morality vs DnD alignment:

The first is that Ethics/Morality is focused on right and wrong, which is inherently subjective, and the second is not knowing the set of amoral principles you're assigning to Law/Chaos.

The set of principles assigned to Law/Chaos isn't about how consistently you choose your flavors of ice cream: it's about weather you are dogmatic or pragmatic, reasonable or unreasonable, reliable or unreliable, principled or reactionary. I find it hard to describe without making law more negative, but the point is that a Lawful person reacts through a lens (usually imposed from outside by society) that does not change, while a Chaotic person reacts through a lens that changes with every new situation. But Ethics/Morality wants to talk about right and wrong, and thus are always judging these qualities based on right and wrong, and right/wrong is inherently subjective.

DnD alignment doesn't care about right and wrong: it cares about Law/Chaos, and Good/Evil. Good is selflessness and charity, Evil is selfishness and cruelty, specifically drawing the line at harming others. Alignment objectively describes (or defines for outsiders and such) how you act/feel/etc, and we decide which are right and which are wrong. The fact that most people agree some form of Good is right and all Evil is wrong does not affect how the system is built.

Your argument for neutral good boiled down to: lawful structures have weaknesses and chaotic structures have weaknesses, therefore a structure that is neutral is the best structure to accomplish the aims of good. . .
Now, I'm sure in the alignment handbooks there are similar arguments for why lawful good is better than neutral and chaotic good and why chaotic good is better than lawful or neutral good. Regardless of which alignment wins, the point is that the so-called independent axes are not really independent. If it were really independent, then you wouldn't be able to make a case that Neutral Good is Gooder than Lawful Good or Chaotic Good any more than you can make a case than vanilla ice cream is morally superior to neopolitan.
This is a result of some poor choice of words in that any sort of government feels that it is acting in the best interests of it's people, and also the practical application of any aligned power group to anything. I mentioned only weaknesses for brevity, but it should be obvious that both have their own strengths as well. That is why in order to have the best effect for the greatest part of the (average neutral by the way) population, you need to use both styles in their appropriate places. LG and CG are extremes that will alienate a greater portion of the population than NG will, it should be obvious they would be less effective.

So to recap, I originally answered another posters ambiguous question with "NG is best," because when applying the alignment to a macro situation as in the whole society/leadership/government, NG will get the best results (and that situation is the natural starting point I jump off from, having had most of my discussion relating to politics). Since you're thinking from the official Ethics/Morality viewpoint of right and wrong, you took that as my saying that NG is Right and thus a demonstration of why the Law/Chaos axis is invalid, because I chopped them off myself. Making practical decisions, choosing which alignment is right, does not make the original description stop being accurate. If Ethics/Morality is telling you what to do, that makes it a pre-scriptive system, while Alignment is a de-scriptive system.

Actually now that I've hit it, yeah that sounds like an even bigger problem. DnD needs a descriptive system for determining the interactions of various magics and class features, which have nothing to do with the prescriptive moral theories. So again, why is it a problem that it doesn't map and what advantage does dropping law/chaos gain, aside from less arguing?

As for people screwing it up all the time, that's called user error.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Thank you for the explanations, now I wish I had some idea of where the law/chaos=ethics started back in the day, since it clearly isn't helping things.

Law/Chaos started out as the only axis of D&D alignment back in the day. There was lawful and chaotic. Fairly early on, they added the good/evil axis to make the dogs breakfast that D&D has stuck with ever since (notwithstanding the unfortunately short-lived improvement in 4e).

The literary antecedents of Law and Chaos are most notably Poul Anderson (Three Hearts and Three Lions) and Elric of Melinbourne, but it also seems to draw inspiration from Abraham Merritt (The Metal Monster is quite possible one of the inspirations for Modrons) and often incorporates themes from Robert Howard etc (civilization vs barbarism in the Conan tales etc).


So I'm seeing two problems with Ethics/Morality vs DnD alignment:

The first is that Ethics/Morality is focused on right and wrong, which is inherently subjective, and the second is not knowing the set of amoral principles you're assigning to Law/Chaos.
If Ethics/Morality is telling you what to do, that makes it a pre-scriptive system, while Alignment is a de-scriptive system.

As for people screwing it up all the time, that's called user error.

I think you will find that while it is popular in modern western societies to say that right and wrong are inherently subjective, most people throughout history did not believe that, most people in the world do not believe that, and even in modern western societies where people are trained to repeat that, most people do not actually believe that. Most people think that murder is wrong and that it is not subject--ok if you think it's ok, not ok if you think it's wrong. Most people think that raping their tribe is wrong and that that is objective, not subjective. (On the other hand, the icky historical position is most people throughout history have not had much problem with raping people from other tribes/polities--spoils of war and all that. The modern western position on this is a historical anomoly). Even most modern westerners believe that slavery is objectively wrong, not just wrong for modern western people--it was/is also wrong for people like John Calhoun (defender of slavery in the antebellum US), Boko Haram, and ISIS.

This is often confused by people discussing whether it would be wrong to kill Hitler (a popular example), however that is not a question of subjectivity or objectivity but rather a question of whether there are exceptions or subroutines to the popular formulations (murder is wrong, unless "murder" will do more good than harm, in which case it is OK, to put a utilitarian spin on the Hitler case).

As for Prescriptivity/Descriptivity, actual human moral/ethical theories are both, and so is alignment (though the descriptive view of alignment is more mechanically prevalent). Ethical theory is what Von Stauffenberg is doing when he sits down and asks, "should I try to assassinate Hitler?" (prescriptive) and what we are doing when we ask, "was he right to try to assassinate Hitler?" (descriptive). Likewise it is useful prescriptively for a president or Senator when they ask, "these terrorists we captured probably have information that we could use to save lives; what is it right for us to do in order to convince them to tell us?" and it descriptively is what we use (consciously or not) when we ask, "Is Jack Bauer from 24 a good guy?"

Likewise alignment falls on both the prescriptive and descriptive sides of the fence. It is prescriptive when someone posts a thread, "the rogue is killing baby goblins, what should my paladin/ Neutral Good Cleric/Chaotic Neutral barbarian do?" There the poster posits that his character has a commitment to a particular ethical/moral position described by alignment and asks what that commitment indicates he should do within the context of a cooperative social game (which is why there are frequently in character and out of character solutions advocated). Alignment is also prescriptive when someone posts something like "New Pathfinder game running Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path. Starting at level 1, 20 point buy, core rules only, No evil or Chaotic Neutral characters. Email [email protected] for details." Alignment is descriptive when someone posts a thread, "the paladin slept with a succubus and is sacrificing to Belial, is he still Lawful Good?" And it is descriptive when a player complains, "So, this guy steps out of the underbrush, points a crossbow at me and says, "your money or your life" but my smite evil doesn't work on him? Come on man? That's Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Neutral."

In terms of game functions, alignment A. Provides a convenient limiting factor for what kinds of characters are allowed in order to promote particular kinds of games, (heroic/cooperative for many games or tyrannical/cooperative in Hell's Vengeance), B. Allows moral/ethical factors to have some genre appropriate in-game effects--the Paladin's powers depend on his personal virtue, a cleric has to act more or less in-keeping with his deity's teachings, a "holy" sword can only be wielded by a virtuous character, a "holy" sword is especially injurious to dastardly villains but doesn't do anything extra to animals or normal people who just happen to be on the other side of a war, and it is possible for priests to call down holy energy to smite the wicked but leave the righteous unharmed. Etc.

And that's why there's no use dropping moral/ethical factors from alignment (unless you don't want those kind of abilities to exist): many of the genre appropriate abilities that alignment is used to create operate on an explicitly moral/ethical basis. You can't allow a paladin to see the auras of the wicked without having a moral component in the system you use to decide who has what aura. You can't have a sword that only works for the pure of heart unless you have a system that tells you who is pure of heart.

In terms of user error, I don't think that's a very good excuse for the alignment system. You can try to send a rocket to Mars using Copernican epicycles and Aristotelean physics and blame every failure on user error if you want, but bad/incomplete/inaccurate systems produce bad results. If you use modern models of the Solar System and relativistic physics, you can still have failures due to user error, but you are a lot more likely to get that rocket to Mars because you are using better systems. In terms of alignment, I would describe the various inconsistencies--particularly along the law/chaos axis--as being along the lines of epicycles in the Copernican system: ad-hoc kludges which may or may not be consistent and may or may not make sense but which people use in order to make a bad system more functional. Unfortunately, the Law/Chaos axis is considerably worse than than Copernican astronomy and every kludge introduced to make one part consistent breaks another part, unlike epicycles which actually enabled late Copernican astronomy to outperform Galileo's early model in a number of instances.

[OldTrees1]

Again I am reply to both posts so we sync up our conversation.


Last post edited for more stuff, this post edited for more stuff, everybody gets stuff!

My first thought is that focusing on a single question "What ought one do?" is inherently causing a single line. It's an open ended question, picking an answer means it isn't open ended anymore. Morality as I (and I would imagine most) people hear about it actually focuses on what one ought not to do, as once again very few people actually emulate their moral examplars, but they have plenty to say about making sure everyone else isn't stepping out of line. I sort it into two very simple statements, phrased in the same form: One ought to help others, and ought not to harm others. Presumably there is a similar root question for ethics, but someone said ethics/morality are mostly the same question earlier. If the root ethical question is assuming one state is better than the other, then of course people are going to line it up with good/evil every time.
Separating that out a bit:
1) A complete answer to what one ought to do will detail what one must do, what one must not do, what is perfectly acceptable to do, and what is exemplary to do. Do remember that morality as you hear about it might only be the naive forms of proposed answers to the question. A more rigorous proposed answer(utilitarianism is an simple example) covers much more of the question in its proposed answer.

2) As for a root question describing the Law - Chaotic axis, I have to ask "which one?". Unfortunately WotC was rather inconsistent in its writing of the Law - Chaos axis and thus smashed together several questions. However all such questions can be phrased with a presumption of an answer.

Both you and Elder_Basilisk seem to think Law/Chaos is inherently bad/broken/damaging somehow, but I've yet to hear any evidence as to why aside from "it doesn't match any theories I've heard." Why is this:

I did not mean moral axis, amoral axis, immoral axis. I meant a moral, amoral, immoral axis (or many for complex cases).
Morally Supererogatory, Morally Obligatory, Amoral/Morally Permissible, Morally Prohibited is how my mind parses it.

superior? It's because you've mashed law/chaos into it. Obligation is a lawful concept, while permissible is a more neutral way of saying "chaotic," implying that it goes against the rules but not so badly anyone really cares. Your scale goes Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral (or maybe just Neutral), and Neutral Evil, phrased/ordered in such a way as to imply law is better and with neutral as "moral", a LG or LN perspective (depending on how much you read into things) ignoring variation at either end. By cutting the corners off the alignment grid you can ignore questions of weather LG/CG is better or LE vs CE is worse, which is actually useful in the sense that yeah, NG beats everything and any type of Evil is bad, but you're still saying that law is better for no explained reason.*
1) I said the WotC contradictions about Law and Chaos is broken. I have been defending having non Good/Evil axes (including non RAW Law-Chaos axes) in addition to the Good/Evil axis.

2) As for my wording and naming choices (names mean nothing but what they are used to convey):
An action can be required or not
An action can be moral, immoral, or neither
One can never be morally required to do what one ought not do
List all the resulting categories

This was not about bringing law and chaos into the question, this was about giving a complete answer to the question using all morally significant details regardless of where and what those details are.

Now some of those 5 categories(4 if you combine the two amoral categories) might be null sets(there might be nothing that is morally obligatory).


Thank you for the explanations, now I wish I had some idea of where the law/chaos=ethics started back in the day, since it clearly isn't helping things.

So I'm seeing two problems with Ethics/Morality vs DnD alignment:

The first is that Ethics/Morality is focused on right and wrong, which is inherently subjective, and the second is not knowing the set of amoral principles you're assigning to Law/Chaos.

The set of principles assigned to Law/Chaos isn't about how consistently you choose your flavors of ice cream: it's about weather you are dogmatic or pragmatic, reasonable or unreasonable, reliable or unreliable, principled or reactionary. I find it hard to describe without making law more negative, but the point is that a Lawful person reacts through a lens (usually imposed from outside by society) that does not change, while a Chaotic person reacts through a lens that changes with every new situation. But Ethics/Morality wants to talk about right and wrong, and thus are always judging these qualities based on right and wrong, and right/wrong is inherently subjective.
1)Opinions about what answer to propose to Ethics/Morality is inherently subjective. This is not the same as saying the correct answer is inherently subjective. (Personally I expect there to be an objective but unknowable answer)

2) You named another Law-Chaos axis. I used the ice cream example mostly to demonstrate it being independent from ethics/morality. I am sure you can come up with similar amoral examples for the consistent Law/Chaos axis you are describing.



DnD alignment doesn't care about right and wrong: it cares about Law/Chaos, and Good/Evil. Good is selflessness and charity, Evil is selfishness and cruelty, specifically drawing the line at harming others. Alignment objectively describes (or defines for outsiders and such) how you act/feel/etc, and we decide which are right and which are wrong. The fact that most people agree some form of Good is right and all Evil is wrong does not affect how the system is built.

Correct, unless the DM chooses otherwise.

Nitpick: Good & Evil are often synonymous with Moral & Immoral which is one reason many critique WotC's writing.


Just as a brief overview:
WotC had too many writers to write consistently about Law/Chaos.
I like having a consistent Law/Chaos axis because having non moral axes helps paint a more detailed picture.
Philosophers dealing with Ethics/Morality are not trying to pretend a Moral,Amoral,Immoral axis describes Law/Chaos but will not blind themselves to morally relevant details (like the difference between Morally Obligatory and Morally Supererogatory).

[Elder_Basilisk]

Just as a brief overview:
WotC had too many writers to write consistently about Law/Chaos.
I like having a consistent Law/Chaos axis because having non moral axes helps paint a more detailed picture.
Philosophers dealing with Ethics/Morality are not trying to pretend a Moral,Amoral,Immoral axis describes Law/Chaos but will not blind themselves to morally relevant details (like the difference between Morally Obligatory and Morally Supererogatory).

For my part, I prefer ditching Law/Chaos because it incorporates too many inconsistent ideas to be useful.
In terms of describing characters, you can have endless threads on whether Batman is Lawful Good or Chaotic Good (or Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral or whatever) precisely because Batman and many other characters can fit one part of the description of Lawful to a T while simultaneously fitting another part of the description of Chaotic to a T. D&D players being what they are, they sperg out on the part of the Lawful/Chaotic description they find more useful and dominant and go back and forth on "but he has a personal code" "but he defies the law of the land" forever.
In terms of providing mechanics for world-building conflicts, it leads to rather silly results. A paladin would not be on the side of Elric's Lord of Law or the Powers of Chaos even though he is Lawful. A paladin would not side with Abraham Merritt's Metal Monster over vikings. Sir Galahad or Ogier the Dane would be with Captain Sherridan telling both the Vorlons and the Shadows to get lost (though they would do it with their swords and we wouldn't have been subjected to the lame, anti-climactic ending of the Shadow War theory). And conversely, Robin Hood would not look at someone fighting beings of the far realms and think, "they're chaotic neutral, I'm chaotic good, the guy they're fighting is Lawful Neutral" then jump in on the side of the great old ones.

If you want another set of axes to describe your character, you are much better off using several different axes that provide more detailed and consistent answers: Meyers Briggs if you want to know their personality, define their political commitments if you want to know their attitudes towards government, etc.
If you want a set of axes in order to define mechanics for a cosmic conflict, then Summer/Winter (if you're in the Dresden files), or Natural/Far Realms, Faerie/Christendom (if you're in Three Hearts and Three Lions) or an axis specific to whatever conflict you have in your game is going to make a lot more sense than the consolidated Law/Chaos axis of D&D. There is no reason that a sword forged to banish the far realms should be particularly effective against Vikings and it runs counter to the theme for it to do anything special to fey (who are supposed to be in tune with/spring from the natural world).

[Jay R]

Law/Chaos started out as the only axis of D&D alignment back in the day.

It was called Law/Chaos, but the very few alignment rules made it clear that they meant Good/Evil. High level Chaotic clerics were called Evil High Priests. Only Chaotic clerics could cast "Finger of Death", etc.

[Elder_Basilisk]

It was called Law/Chaos, but the very few alignment rules made it clear that they meant Good/Evil. High level Chaotic clerics were called Evil High Priests. Only Chaotic clerics could cast "Finger of Death", etc.

My guess is that it was actually a Poul Andersonian Three Hearts and Three Lions style Law/Chaos where chaos included evil even if it was not necessarily limited to it. (The elves in Three Hearts and Three Lions are not presented as evil as much as just on the other side even if the more elf-centric Broken Sword makes them look evil).

Going back to some earlier comments on Gygax's Dragonsfoot comments on OD&D alignment the next generation of alignment actually does map pretty well to what would happen if you crossed a Three Hearts Three Lions Law/Chaos army list with a Lord of the Rings or Ragnarok good/evil army list. Gygax's Chaotic Good might enslave the prisoners comment makes no sense in terms of later freedom associated Chaos, but it makes perfect sense if instead, you ask what Imric, the elf earl from Poul Anderson's _Broken Sword_ would do or what a viking would do. And Chaotic (on the Andersonian Law vs Chaos=Christendom vs Faerie/Paganism scale) Good (on the Thor and people vs giants trolls and allies or Elves, men of Gondor, and Rohorrim vs orcs scale) is exactly where the vikings (such as Ragnar the fearless and Ragnar Ragnarson of Bernard Cromwell's Saxon Chronicles/The Last Kingdom) and Imric the elf earl would end up in such a mixing army lists scenario even though a modern D&D moral philosophy approach to alignment would tag them both as some shade of evil.

[CowardlyPaladin]

Well, to make it short, you could say that Ottis Toole is CE, being a serial killer, and Adolf Hitler is LE, being a dictator.
Now ask him: Who did worse things?

Of course, that doesn't make your point right, just his wrong.
The again, going right with the alignment system may require a divine spellcaster capable of level 9 spells... or a shadowcraft mage.

At the risk of making this too political/historical, i wouldn't say Hitler is LE, because a dictatorship doesn't necessarily imply rule of law. the Nazis talked a lot about Law, but Hitler personally was rather chaotic in his personal life, he pitted different departments against each other because he believed in survival of the fittest, his method of oversight was random, unpredictable and constantly changing, and he valued a Romantic ideal of a state more than a Rule of Law ideal, in fact he was a bit contemptous of rule of law vs. Ad hoc Law. I think that many top Nazis would be LE, but I think he personally was CE

But I agree with the principle, it isn't a sliding scale because if you look at the Abyss vs. the Nine Hells, either of them winning is terrible for everybody. IN fact evil propsers if you think of it as a sliding scale, because it then pits Good against Good and makes LE seem like the "reasonable alternative" rather than just another different horror waiting in the wings.

[Coidzor]

As such I don't see a barrier preventing the layman from conversing with the professional at or at least near the same level on a topic.

The nature of the language used seems to often be the barrier, in some cases intentionally in order to try to claim a superior position and "win," and in other cases unintentionally.

[Fizban]

Law/Chaos started out as the only axis of D&D alignment back in the day.The literary antecedents of Law and Chaos are most notably Poul Anderson (Three Hearts and Three Lions) and Elric of Melinbourne, but it also seems to draw inspiration from Abraham Merritt (The Metal Monster is quite possible one of the inspirations for Modrons) and often incorporates themes from Robert Howard etc (civilization vs barbarism in the Conan tales etc).
Irrelevant. Either state your definition of Law/Chaos, or accept mine for the purpose of argument.

I think you will find that while it is popular in modern western societies to say that right and wrong are inherently subjective, most people throughout history did not believe that, most people in the world do not believe that, and even in modern western societies where people are trained to repeat that, most people do not actually believe that. Most people think that murder is wrong and that it is not subject--ok if you think it's ok, not ok if you think it's wrong. Most people think that raping their tribe is wrong and that that is objective, not subjective. (On the other hand, the icky historical position is most people throughout history have not had much problem with raping people from other tribes/polities--spoils of war and all that. The modern western position on this is a historical anomoly). Even most modern westerners believe that slavery is objectively wrong, not just wrong for modern western people--it was/is also wrong for people like John Calhoun (defender of slavery in the antebellum US), Boko Haram, and ISIS.
And your point is? It doesn't matter what anyone believes, the point is to define the two axis and use them to describe things. You are dragging Ethics/Morals/right/wrong into it, so it is up to you to prove why it works better.

As for Prescriptivity/Descriptivity, actual human moral/ethical theories are both, and so is alignment (though the descriptive view of alignment is more mechanically prevalent).
Just because you can use something in more than one way doesn't negate it's primary goal and function. Alignment is built primarily to describe, it states a definition and then checks to see if actions match up with it. Using alignment prescriptively as in your examples is possible, but is not the primary function. I really don't feel like arguing with you over the primary function of Ethics/Morality, since you and OldTrees1 have given different answers on that and it seems clear you're just going to move the goalposts. Either Ethics/Morality can be defined well enough to compare it to alignment (in which case it will be something-iptive), or it's a whole school of thought that varies depending on what goal it's applied to and your argument is invalid because you can't actually make a counter-offer.

And that's why there's no use dropping moral/ethical factors from alignment (unless you don't want those kind of abilities to exist): many of the genre appropriate abilities that alignment is used to create operate on an explicitly moral/ethical basis. You can't allow a paladin to see the auras of the wicked without having a moral component in the system you use to decide who has what aura. You can't have a sword that only works for the pure of heart unless you have a system that tells you who is pure of heart.
Yo, bro, Ima let you on to something: the alignment system can be used to describe subjective viewpoints without losing objectivity!. The description is objective, and the players decide what's right and wrong. The fact that as you have pointed out, most people agree on what is wright and wrong, is completely immaterial.

In terms of user error, I don't think that's a very good excuse for the alignment system. You can try to send a rocket to Mars using Copernican epicycles and Aristotelean physics and blame every failure on user error if you want, but bad/incomplete/inaccurate systems produce bad results.
You have yet to provide any compelling argument for why alignment doesn't work, nothing but "inconsistencies," I'll get to that later.


2) As for a root question describing the Law - Chaotic axis, I have to ask "which one?".
To which I cheekily respond by asking "which one?" of the suggested right/wrong axis. But that you don't have an answer is in fact the answer. The original "what is the root question for ethics?" you already covered (with Ethics and Morality being two names for the same thing), and the reason I can't define a question for Chaos is because it's Chaos. You can use a question to define Law, but Chaos is most easily described as not-Law. I could try to say that as the state of observation increases, Chaos's undefinability increases, such that a definition can never be reached regardless of how closely one tries to look at it. The try-hard cosmic principle version isn't particularly necessary for practical application of alignment though, so it's not important.

However all such questions can be phrased with a presumption of an answer.
Does not compute.

This was not about bringing law and chaos into the question, this was about giving a complete answer to the question using all morally significant details regardless of where and what those details are.
My point was that you did so without intending to:

2) As for my wording and naming choices (names mean nothing but what they are used to convey):
An action can be required or not
An action can be moral, immoral, or neither
One can never be morally required to do what one ought not do
List all the resulting categories
"An action can be required" is a Lawful statement, Chaos does not require.

1) I said the WotC contradictions about Law and Chaos is broken. I have been defending having non Good/Evil axes (including non RAW Law-Chaos axes) in addition to the Good/Evil axis.
And now we return to WotC being contradictory about Law and Chaos. I do not dispute that, no fool would attempt to do so, however I will invoke the fallacy of "Assuming the Premise." In order to have a discussion about the Law/Chaos alignment axis, you have to acknowledge that there is one. Many alignment debaters including myself have over the years combined the various sources that define alignment, sifted through them, and eventually come to an answer that works the best. So even if WotC's writers have often disagreed, we can still have a definition of Law/Chaos that works with most material and makes the system useable.

Thus I must call upon the opposition to accept the premise that regardless of WotC's failings, the two-axis alignment system is definable and exists. Any argument against it which is precluded upon poor definitions is invalid, because it refuses to accept the premise of the system being useable.

I have provided the definitions and can do so again: Good is selfless or charitable, Evil is selfish or cruel, specifically to the point of harming others. Law is dogmatic or pre-defined, Chaos is pragmatic or undefined until point of contact.

This two axis alignment system has 9 mechanically defined viewpoints. A greater number of viewpoints, especially within otherwise allied groups of actors, allows for more potential conflicts and thus more complex storytelling. Having these viewpoints mechanically defined at a base level means that you can integrate them with game mechanics, and as game mechanics are the primary means by which the players interact with a role-playing-game, the two-axis sytem allows for more variety and a richer experience.

Now, tell me why I'm wrong, from any standpoint that is not rooted in the superiority of "actual" Ethics/Morality, without complaining about WotC's many writers. Remember that you are not arguing from a position of strength: DnD alignment already works, and unless you can prove there is something wrong with the existing system you'll have to prove there is something superior about your new system. This seems unlikely as all ethics/morality groupings given so far have fewer defined viewpoints.


1)Opinions about what answer to propose to Ethics/Morality is inherently subjective. This is not the same as saying the correct answer is inherently subjective. (Personally I expect there to be an objective but unknowable answer)
I think I would say that since an unknowable answer cannot be known, it is irrelevant for practical use. Since we're talking about a practical application here, categorizing our actors, you're stuck with subjective answers. Not that you won't run into bias when using alignment, but that's on the end user and they can usually keep it within acceptable limits.

2) You named another Law-Chaos axis. I used the ice cream example mostly to demonstrate it being independent from ethics/morality. I am sure you can come up with similar amoral examples for the consistent Law/Chaos axis you are describing.
Not sure what you're saying here, maybe a claim that I moved the goalposts? Which is probably accurate to some degree as I've been using more specificity and refining my definitions as I go.

So to recap this one: you made an ice-cream example to illustrate that Law/Chaos is independent from Ethics/Morality. My point is that by your own Ethics/Morality based "alignment" replacement, you have made it so: "An action can be required," being a Lawful concept. By including a Lawful concept in your definitions of right/wrong, you have bound Law into the subjective answer that cannot be avoided.

Correct, unless the DM chooses otherwise.
The DM is one of we who choose where to assign right and wrong. Unless you mean to say that the DM can choose to run alignment incorrectly, in which case see "user error," and "assuming the premise," above.


If you want another set of axes to describe your character, you are much better off using several different axes that provide more detailed and consistent answers: Meyers Briggs if you want to know their personality, define their political commitments if you want to know their attitudes towards government, etc.
If you want a set of axes in order to define mechanics for a cosmic conflict, then Summer/Winter (if you're in the Dresden files), or Natural/Far Realms, Faerie/Christendom (if you're in Three Hearts and Three Lions) or an axis specific to whatever conflict you have in your game is going to make a lot more sense than the consolidated Law/Chaos axis of D&D.
Those are all fine axis to use, but they are not integrated with the system and would still give you a grid rather than a gradient. Meanwhile this,

There is no reason that a sword forged to banish the far realms should be particularly effective against Vikings and it runs counter to the theme for it to do anything special to fey (who are supposed to be in tune with/spring from the natural world).
is a misapplication of the mechanics. A "sword forged to banish the far realms," has nothing to do with alignment, you are the one who has imposed it incorrectly. Such a sword would be Aberration Bane or Outsider [Far Realm] Bane, or use it's own unique enchantment if those don't apply to the proper set of monsters.

However, a "sword forged to impose order upon chaos" would indeed work on both far realm beasts and vikings equally (assuming those vikings were chaotic). That would be the Axiomatic weapon you're thinking of.

[OldTrees1]

To which I cheekily respond by asking "which one?" of the suggested right/wrong axis.
The one that accurately reflects reality of course! :smallbiggrin:
Whatever one that one is. :smallredface:



Does not compute.

Rephrased: Questions for various Law/Chaos axes do not need to be phrased in a manner that assigns Law or Chaos as better than the other. Because being better/right is not part of the definitions we assign to Law or Chaos.

For example: We view reality through lenses. How often will I change lenses? Never? Always? Some of the time? On Tuesdays?



My point was that you did so without intending to:

"An action can be required" is a Lawful statement, Chaos does not require.
I said "An action can be ____ or not ____." not "An action can be ___."
I also said any of those sets could be empty. <--Important!

Take the amoral reality: Morally Supererogatory(none), Morally Obligatory(none), Amoral(all), Immoral(none)


Now, tell me why I'm wrong
Because you failed to internalize that I like the 2 axis system. You have recognized WotC's writing of the Law/Chaos axis had too many authors but also that we DMs have been able to make the 2 axis system work anyways.


I think I would say that since an unknowable answer cannot be known, it is irrelevant for practical use. Since we're talking about a practical application here, categorizing our actors, you're stuck with subjective answers. Not that you won't run into bias when using alignment, but that's on the end user and they can usually keep it within acceptable limits.

Remember part of this discussion was about Philosophy, the questions they pursue, and the answers to those questions. Yes, an unknowable cannot be known and thus cannot be used.

Also remember I was, admittedly begrudgingly, agreeing that discarding an axis that does not work for a particular DM is technically a solution. All this Moral/Ethics axis was already there. Although also remember that the Moral/Ethics axis is related but not the same as the field of Ethics/Morally which in turn is related but not the same as the answer to the question said field asks.
Summary: I agree


Not sure what you're saying here, maybe a claim that I moved the goalposts? Which is probably accurate to some degree as I've been using more specificity and refining my definitions as I go.
I was saying nothing of the sort. I was saying that I was unattached to the example Law/Chaos I used and thus we should switch to your Law/Chaos for this discussion.


So to recap this one: you made an ice-cream example to illustrate that Law/Chaos is independent from Ethics/Morality. My point is that by your own Ethics/Morality based "alignment" replacement, you have made it so: "An action can be required," being a Lawful concept. By including a Lawful concept in your definitions of right/wrong, you have bound Law into the subjective answer that cannot be avoided.

Again: It was "an action can be ___ or not ___." and all the sets have the potential to be empty.

However I will try my example again with the Law/Chaos definition we have shifted to using. You described Law and Chaos as either always looking through the same lens or looking through a different lens each time. That is the definition I will use in this example. If I am not describing your definitions then notice the form of the example and replace this Law/Chaos with your own.

When I go to buy icecream I can look at it through the same lens, I can change the lens I use each time, or something inbetween. Nothing of moral significance was said and thus the Moral/Ethics axis will not and is not intended to differentiate between those options.

If I were trying to collapse one axis into another I would be intending to have every difference on the collapsing axis remain differentiated on the resulting axis. The icecream example shows that is not the case here. Now you have said you have been refining your position, if you find yourself not in disagreement with this, then I don't see us in disagreement.

[2D8HP]

Law/Chaos started out as the only axis of D&D alignment back in the*day.The*literary antecedents of Law and Chaos are most notably Poul Anderson (Three Hearts and Three Lions) and Elric of Melinbourne, but it also seems to draw inspiration from Abraham Merritt (The Metal Monster is quite possible one of the inspirations for Modrons) and often incorporates themes from Robert Howard etc (civilization vs barbarism in the Conan tales etc)..

Irrelevant. Either state your definition of Law/Chaos, or accept mine for the purpose of argument.

*sputter*

Irrelevant? :furious:

Dem's fighting words!

Now, tell me why I'm wrong, from any standpoint that is not rooted in the superiority of "actual" Ethics/Morality, without complaining about WotC's many writers.To mangle Kipling:
"What should they who only know of Dungeons & Dragons, of D&D know?"
(I believe the original poem (http://www.telelib.com/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/volumeXI/englishflag.html) was about some tiny place where it rains a lot, which is clearly not as important as D&D!).

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last
bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, WisconsinOK this is about feelings so subjective, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, WotC's RAW can take a flying leap for all I care! What's important is:
1) Was it fun?
2) Does it honor the literature that inspired D&D?
I've been loving RPG's since 1978, but if I had to choose between losing all of RPG material published after then or most any chapter of the APPENDIX N works that inspired D&D, I would not hesitate to save the pre '78 works. I love my musty old books, and I refuse to accept that they're irrelevant!
Imric the elf-earl rode out by night to see what happened in the lands of men. It was a cool spring dark with the moon nearly full, time glittering on the grass and the stars still hard and bright as in winter. The night was very quiet save for the sigh of wind in budding branches, and the world was all sliding shadows and cold white light. The hoofs of Imric's horse was shod with an alloy of silver, and as high clear ringing went where they struck.
He rode into a forest. Night lay heavy between the trees, but from afar he spied a ruddy glimmer. When he came near, he saw it was firefight shinning through cracks in a hut of mud and wattles under a great gnarly oak from whose boughs Imric remembered the Druids cutting mistletoe. He could sense that a witch lived here, so he dismounted and rapped on the door. Get thee to a library!

[OldTrees1]

*sputter*

Irrelevant? :furious:

Dem's fighting words!
To mangle Kipling:
"What should they who only know of Dungeons & Dragons, of D&D know?"

Halt and lay aside your weapons! :smallsmile:
What do the origins of D&D's Law/Chaos axis have to do with the origins of D&D's Law/Chaos axis being given the misnomer that is the "The Ethics axis" nickname (especially since I suspect the misnomer nickname only came about after the Good/Evil axis was added)?

That is why they considered the reply irrelevant to their curiosity. Surely, now knowing the context, you can understand the sentiment.


PS: Thanks for the "What should they who only know of X, of X know?" quote.

[2D8HP]

Halt and lay aside your weapons!
What do the origins of D&D's Law/Chaos axis have to do with the origins of D&D's Law/Chaos axis being given the misnomer that is the "The Ethics axis" nickname?Well based on my reading of the last chapter of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics) (which is included in my wife's copy of Aristotle's The Politics, which she got as a priveledge of a University education, I'm just a plumber! ) I'd have to say......
Huh? You got me!
Dungeons & Dragons was originally subtitled:
Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames and I think LAW vs. CHAOS was a way of identifying opposing sides in a wargame.
When I first encountered the 5 point alignment system in the 1977 "Holmes blue book" Basic set, (or the 9 point in the '78 AD&D PHB) It really just seemed like a way of explaining why Dwarves and Elves didn't get along despite both being "good" (though scratch an Elf and find a Drow as the Jacquerie (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie) said of Nobles and bandits!). I'm guessing that LAW/CHAOS being labeled the "ethics" axis (with GOOD/EVIL being the "morality" axis), was another bogus something that happened in the Dark Ages that occured after 1985's Unearthed Arcana (yes Gygax poisoned his own game!), and someone with an education rather than a library card may be able to tell the difference between "ethics" and "morality", but I can't.
Sorry.
:redface:

[OldTrees1]

Well based on my reading of the last chapter of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics) (which is included in my wife's copy of Aristotle's The Politics, which she got as a priveledge of a University education, I'm just a plumber! ) I'd have to say......
Huh? You got me!
Dungeons & Dragons was originally subtitled: and I think LAW vs. CHAOS was a way of identifying opposing sides in a wargame.
When I first encountered the 5 point alignment system in the 1977 "Holmes blue book" Basic set, (or the 9 point in the '78 AD&D PHB) It really just seemed like a way of explaining why Dwarves and Elves didn't get along despite both being "good" (though scratch an Elf and find a Drow as the Jacquerie (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie) said of Nobles and bandits!). I'm guessing that LAW/CHAOS being labeled the "ethics" axis (with GOOD/EVIL being the "morality" axis), was another bogus something that happened in the Dark Ages that occured after 1985's Unearthed Arcana (yes Gygax poisoned his own game!), and someone with an education rather than a library card may be able to tell the difference between "ethics" and "morality", but I can't.
Sorry.
:redface:
Now, that well informed guess is a valuable answer to the question.


someone with an education rather than a library card may be able to tell the difference between "ethics" and "morality", but I can't.
Sorry.
:redface:
Nope. As someone with an education in this area, there is not a difference between Ethics and Morality. Ethics is the title of the subsection of Philosophy that deals with Morality. It then divides into Meta-Ethics (what do we mean by these sentences), Normative Ethics (moral theories), and Applied Ethics (considering specific cases). So congrats on your inability to differentiate something from itself! :thumbsup:

[Hurnn]

The alignment grid in 3/3.5 is a simplification of what was originally more like a graph on which every creature fell into a different point on the L/C and G/E axis, there is actually a picture of this from 1st ed somewhere I'm to lazy to look up but it placed various creatures at different points on the grid. However even then it served no mechanical purpose and really makes things more complicated than need be.

If you have an alignment graph of say an X axis L L l N c C C and a Y axis G G g N e E E does having 49 possible points make much functional difference? So orcs are c E now and angels are LG and your character is l g. What would the point be from a mechanical standpoint? I'm sure in a prefect world there could be an incredibly nuanced alignment system that every variation mattered some how, but I'd rather play a game than be an accountant.

[digiman619]

The alignment grid in 3/3.5 is a simplification of what was originally more like a graph on which every creature fell into a different point on the L/C and G/E axis, there is actually a picture of this from 1st ed somewhere I'm to lazy to look up but it placed various creatures at different points on the grid. However even then it served no mechanical purpose and really makes things more complicated than need be.

If you have an alignment graph of say an X axis L L l N c C C and a Y axis G G g N e E E does having 49 possible points make much functional difference? So orcs are c E now and angels are LG and your character is l g. What would the point be from a mechanical standpoint? I'm sure in a prefect world there could be an incredibly nuanced alignment system that every variation mattered some how, but I'd rather play a game than be an accountant.

If these forums have taught me anything, it's that if you're playing 3.P "effectively", then accountant won't cut it, you have to me a mathematician.

[2D8HP]

The alignment grid in 3/3.5 is a simplification of what was originally more like a graph on which every creature fell into a different point on the L/C and G/E axis, there is actually a picture of this from 1st ed somewhere I'm to lazy to look up but it placed various creatures at different points on the grid.
Click here (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg), it's from the

February 1976 issue of The Strategic Review (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)


If these forums have taught me anything, it's that if you're playing 3.P "effectively", then accountant won't cut it, you have to me a mathematician.
:biggrin:
I am so very much going to use that quote!

[digiman619]

:biggrin: I am so very much going to use that quote!

Have it with my blessings.

[Grytorm]

I have ideas about alignment. Just tried to sort out what I thought of Law and Chaos. Came up with a pretty little idea that to be lawful means to believe in law as something more real rather than just a construct. That justice is somehow higher than vengeance.

Just a thought.

[Segev]

https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

[Fizban]

Summary: I agree
I figured we were pretty close to agreement, it just fit better to wait on my response to inconsistency for that part since you both (and many others) mentioned it.

I said "An action can be ____ or not ____." not "An action can be ___."
I also said any of those sets could be empty. <--Important!
Arg, you're still missing the point. "An action can be required or not required," means that an action can be required, it's the first 2/3 of the sentence. Your original 4 groupings included "An action can be morally required." I don't know how I can make that any more simple. Requiring someone to perform an action is Lawful, you had the category "an action can be morally required," thus you included Law.

When I go to buy icecream I can look at it through the same lens, I can change the lens I use each time, or something inbetween. Nothing of moral significance was said and thus the Moral/Ethics axis will not and is not intended to differentiate between those options.
Agreed. The only reason I'm still saying you've got Law/Chaos in your morals is above.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Irrelevant. Either state your definition of Law/Chaos, or accept mine for the purpose of argument.

You asked about the origins of D&D Law and Chaos. I answered about the origins of D&D Law and Chaos. Your question is right there in the quote above my comment. What's your problem?


And your point is? It doesn't matter what anyone believes, the point is to define the two axis and use them to describe things. You are dragging Ethics/Morals/right/wrong into it, so it is up to you to prove why it works better.

You're the one who said that right and wrong are inherently subjective. I point out that relatively few people even claim to believe that and no-one acts like they believe it. If it's not relevant, why did you bring it up?

But regardless of that, I thought you agreed that the good/evil axis works. I think that a good/evil axis works too--I just think that we should apply a little more thought to it than WotC or Paizo does in their books. (Which is fine because most thoughtful people independently put more thought into right and wrong/good and evil than Paizo or WotC provide in the alignment description, people who don't put more thought into it can use the Paizo or WotC description, and nobody wants a long section on ethical theory in their gamebooks).


Just because you can use something in more than one way doesn't negate it's primary goal and function. Alignment is built primarily to describe, it states a definition and then checks to see if actions match up with it. Using alignment prescriptively as in your examples is possible, but is not the primary function. I really don't feel like arguing with you over the primary function of Ethics/Morality, since you and OldTrees1 have given different answers on that and it seems clear you're just going to move the goalposts.

Again with the accusations of bad faith. You asked. I answered. I can't control what Oldtrees1 thinks.

Regardless of your personal attacks, if you want to incorporate a sophisticated understanding of good and evil or right and wrong into the game, then ethical theory is the place to go. Go as deep into it or as shallow as you like but don't complain that you're getting stupid answers in a paladin thread if you don't care to think things through. You can do that for the good/evil axis because the terms have meaning outside the game.


Either Ethics/Morality can be defined well enough to compare it to alignment (in which case it will be something-iptive), or it's a whole school of thought that varies depending on what goal it's applied to and your argument is invalid because you can't actually make a counter-offer.

Moral/Ethical theory is easily defined well enough to be comparable to the good/evil axis of alignment--in fact, they do exactly the same thing from a descriptive standpoint: tell you what actions are good/right and which are evil/wrong. Any time you use the Good/Evil alignment axis, you are probably applying ethical theory of some kind. Now as soon as you want to go beyond broad strokes, you'll need to pick a particular ethical theory be it natural law theory, utilitarianism, virtue ethics (whether Aristotle's, Phillipa Footes', or Alisdair MacIntyre's, or the one paragraph summary in the PHB, or whatever), but you're going to pick something as soon as a hard question shows up in your game even if it's your own ad hoc made up stuff or what someone on the GiTP said.

In my game, if the paladin decides to enslave hobgoblins or go Jack Bauer on a cultist, I'll probably be applying natural law theory to figure out whether or not he's committed an evil act. But it's still going on the Good/Neutral/Evil axis.


Yo, bro, Ima let you on to something: the alignment system can be used to describe subjective viewpoints without losing objectivity!.

Yay! First multiple accusations of bad faith, now condescension and sarcasm.


You have yet to provide any compelling argument for why alignment doesn't work, nothing but "inconsistencies," I'll get to that later.

Inconsistencies are a perfectly good reason for Law/Chaos not to be workable. If you can't figure out whether Batman or Hitler are lawful or chaotic from reading the comic and 50 pages of internet discussion, then that's a pretty good argument that the axis is not workable as written.

Your proposed definition of Law=dogmatism and Chaos=not planning till the situation comes up also illustrates the challenge of trying to fix Law/Chaos. First, it's just your definition. Other people bring significantly different expectations to Law/Chaos as is illustrated every time you get a "my paladin just entered a city where slavery is legal; does being Lawful mean I have to be OK with it?" question on the boards. Many of those expectations are informed by the PHB definition of Law and Chaos which are considerably less coherent. Since the definition is not shared and is significantly different from the default definition in the PHB, you can't expect to take the monster manual and say, "elves are chaotic, order's wrath should smack them down!" because the things that make elves chaotic in the monster manual may not make them chaotic under your definition (and probably don't since elves are given to long-term planning, etc). You also can't hear a player say, "I've got a Lawful Neutral vigilante I'm bringing to your Hell's Rebels game!" and expect that your Lawful will be the same as theirs. In fact, you can expect it probably isn't. And even then, you run into some challenges that you may or may not anticipate. The orc warlord who has burned for revenge against the humans ever since he was a child and so planned a campaign of rapine and pillaging through the human lands--can he be chaotic if he's planned that much? Heck, can he be chaotic if his approach is orc=good, human=bad; doesn't that dogmatism make him lawful? If so, what use is an alignment system where the effective barbarian leader has to be a different alignment from his chaotic followers?

However, for a more in depth answer that address why it's not worthwhile to rewrite it:

A. To know if something works or not, you need to know what it is supposed to do.
B. The Good/Evil axis is supposed to tell me how effects that interact with PCs' and NPCs' moral standing affect them--whether a paladin has committed an evil act and falls, whether the fighter takes a negative level when he picks up a holy sword, whether the rogue takes damage from the holy smite, and how much damage, etc. By doing that, it enables me to tell stories that center on conflict between the forces of light and holiness and the forces of evil and incorporate genre appropriate things like swords that can only be wielded by the pure of heart, holy water that burns demons, priests and champions who must remain pure in order to use their powers, etc.

It also allows me to tell prospective players, "no villains as PCs." That's a side benefit, but it's nice.

C. Presumably the Law/Chaos is supposed to provide an independent axis along which there can be cosmic conflict and game-changing effects. By doing that, I guess it's supposed to enable me to tell stories about those cosmic conflicts between the forces of whatever Law is and the forces of whatever Chaos is, though the definition problem pokes its head up again here. It's pretty hard to care about a conflict we can't even define well. And if we do define it along your lines, it's also really hard to care about the conflict between people the forces of dogmatism and the forces of whatever the hell they feel like this morning. Sounds like they should all see a psychologist and get that fixed.

But if we can figure out a good definition for an independent Law/Chaos axis, why not do it?
C1. What stories does it help me tell again? Not any that I care to tell. No one cares about Law/Chaos. It is not actually a driving force in many (if any) real life conflicts*. This is why 90%+ of published adventures focus on good/evil axis conflicts rather than law/chaos axis conflicts. It is also why, no other major role-playing game has any alignment component that maps directly to the Law/Chaos spectrum as imagined in the D&D grid model.** No one knows what it is (those darn inconsistencies again) and if they did, they mostly would not care until it spilled over into some actual harm or evil in which case the harm and evil is what they'd care about.

*A lot of people will probably suggest the Cold War as an example of a real life Law/Chaos conflict with Soviet forces representing Law/Collectivism and NATO nations representing Chaos/freedom/individualism. That doesn't work. Firstly, despite their top down command economies and official collectivist philosophies, the Warsaw Pact nations aren't very good examples of Lawfulness (the history of Kremlin intrigues could supply RA Salvatore inspiration for a decade of Drow novels), and NATO nations are not good examples of Chaos either (rule of law being much more notable on the NATO side than the Warsaw pact side for example). More importantly, to see it as a conflict of law and chaos requires you to ignore all of the rhetoric and motivations of the people who were actually a part of the conflict. On the soviet side, their propaganda was explicitly moral. The capitalist system was decadent, cruel, exploitive, racist, etc. In short, it was evil. On the Nato side, Reagan famously called the Soviet union an evil empire. The system of gulags and secret police was evil. To hear those on the Nato/Western side of the cold war tell it, the ban on religion and persecution of Christians were evil, as were their fomenting of revolutions that led to tyranny and starvation throughout the world.

**Warhammer and Warhammer 40k and their various properties include roleplaying games and do use Chaos as an alignment, but it is distinct from the gridlike D&D treatment of Law and Chaos in several very important ways. First, it is Chaos, not Law and Chaos. There are no corresponding mythic forces of Law to oppose the Chaos gods. Second, there is no good and evil axis. Like OD&D, Warhammer Chaos incorporates some elements of evil. The lack of a cosmic Law side to the axis and the lack of a good/evil axis have the effect of amplifying the grimdark tone and essential hopelessness of the settings. "There is only war." That is not D&D law/chaos.

B2. If I had a desire to tell the stories that Law/Chaos seems to be modeled upon, it's not very good at it. The Law/Chaos axis does not actually do a good job of modeling the imaginary world-driving conflicts that get assigned to the Law/Chaos axis. Since no major adventures that I know of really emphasize the Law/Chaos axis, I'll focus instead on literary examples which, if modeled in D&D would be assigned to Law/Chaos based on the similarity of the philosophies and the alignments assigned to them in the monster manual.

a. Babylon 5: Shadows vs Vorlons and Michael Moorcock: Lords of Law vs. Demons
Thematically, this is also "whoever wins, we lose" cosmic conflict. As such, it undermines the supposed independence of the Law/Chaos axis. While it is quite possible for a person to be on either side of the conflict for personal reasons, a Good character pretty much has to be a "pox on both your houses" or "play both sides against the middle" character. If Lawful means being on the side of the Lords of Law, then you can't be Lawful Good. Likewise, if Chaotic means that you are on the side of the demons, you can't be Chaotic Good. It is no coincidence that the characters in Babylon 5 who were depicted as virtuous ended up rejecting both the Shadows and the Vorlons.

If I wanted to tell these stories, I would want either a single axis Law/Chaos alignment or a kind of three option Lawful/Chaotic/Good alignment chart. This kind of law/chaos cannot be independent from moral concerns.

b. Far Realms/Great Old Ones vs nature/everything else in the universe
The Law/Chaos axis does not work to give mechanics to this conflict either, but for a different reason: The creatures that thematically should be most opposed to the denizens of the far realms--the fae--are the same alignment as them. It's hard for law/chaos to model the conflict between nature and the far realms when Queen Mab, Titania, Oberon and the Dryads are all some variety of Chaotic: just like the far realms creatures they are supposed to be opposing. Now, that doesn't mean the story doesn't work. But it does mean that the Law/Chaos axis gets in the way of the storytelling and does not support it.*

The other problem with using the Law/Chaos axis for this conflict is that the conflict assumes that ALL the PCs and indeed all the world are naturally on the other side of the axis from the Far Realms creatures. We are here; they are there. Even if you arrange it so that all of the PCs are on the other side of the Law/Chaos axis from your Creatures From Beyond (which in the alignment system unnecessarily restricts what PCs and and personalities/personal commitments are available), you still have a good portion of the world and cosmic forces which aren't opposed to them on the Law/Chaos axis but which should thematically be opposed to them for the kind of alignment based effects that D&D has.

*The flaw is assigning the denizens of the far realms an alignment--or perhaps the association of Chaos with madness which is probably why the Chaotic Neutral/Chaotic Evil (depending on the depiction in question) alignment sticks to the far realms. They should be equally opposed to (or unconcerned with) all understandable philosophies, creatures, and forces of the campaign world. But if you fix that flaw and don't stick them with an alignment, then the Law/Chaos axis does not help you tell the story at all. (The Arcanis setting handled this kind of situation with the Entropic subtype, which was a good solution but didn't make use of the Law/Chaos axis).

c. Civilization vs Barbarism. The barbarian hordes are coming. Literary examples include Robert Howard's Beyond the Black River, Firefly, and some Westerns.

This kind of story doesn't really benefit from the addition of the Law/Chaos axis. Very few such stories feature sacred relics which smite disorderly barbarians only unless they are adding an element of moral judgment where the barbarians are also evil (and if you're doing that, the good/evil axis is what you want). Otherwise, the iron discipline of the roman legions in Gaul or the British redcoats at Roark's Drift are the elements the story wants to emphasize.


This two axis alignment system has 9 mechanically defined viewpoints. A greater number of viewpoints, especially within otherwise allied groups of actors, allows for more potential conflicts and thus more complex storytelling. Having these viewpoints mechanically defined at a base level means that you can integrate them with game mechanics, and as game mechanics are the primary means by which the players interact with a role-playing-game, the two-axis sytem allows for more variety and a richer experience.

This is part of the conversation with Oldtrees1, but it is relevant to my part of the discussion too. What you are demonstrating is a flaw of the alignment system, not a virtue.

Alignment does not and should not exist in order to codify "viewpoints" and "allow conflicts between otherwise allied groups of actors."

1. The idea that all viewpoints need mechanical definition in order to have conflict is flawed. They don't. It is entirely possible (and generally a good idea) to have conflict between characters of the same alignment, whether in my proposed revision, OldTree1's revision, or the D&D system in general. You can have a conflict between the Three Musketeers and Cardinal Richelieu, for example where (at least in many depictions) they are all the same alignment and simply have different loyalties (the queen vs France). You don't need to be Lawful Neutral to think the queen is a skanky ho who should be exposed, and you don't need to be Chaotic Good to think you should try to get the diamonds she gave to her english lover back before she is exposed to the king. The characters could all be true neutral and you could still tell the story. That story is easy to tell without any alignments (and Alexander Dumas and many others have managed to tell it in many different ways without reference to any alignment mechanics). You could run a campaign based on the 30 years war with all the sides being predominantly Lawful Good (though you'd probably have fewer peasant massacres than the actual 30 years war). You don't need mechanically coded alignment labels in order to have conflict.

2. The is actually one of the dangers of the D&D alignment system: the assumption that all people with a single alignment share a single viewpoint. You make the argument above as though having 9 possible viewpoints were a positive aspect of the alignment system. Regardless of what alignment system you use, there should be room for a nearly infinite number of viewpoints and conflict based on incomplete information, differing commitments, differing priorities among those with the same commitments, and petty jealousies, envies, and pride even among those with the same information, commitments, and priorities. That the D&D alignment system might lead anyone to think that there are nine possible viewpoints that provide grounds for conflict is a reason to ditch it.

3. The actual interaction of alignment with the rules does not support any of the things you just mentioned. In terms of how the players interact with the world, alignment lets paladins fall, provides a couple restrictions to other classes, and lets there be holy swords, spells that hurt bad guys while leaving good people unharmed, and allows paladins and people with detect alignment spells to see how other characters interact with the world (in a very general way). There is nothing in the alignment rules that makes anyone have conflicts with anyone else.

If Josiah, LG cleric of St Cuthbert is traveling with LN Sir Jack Bauer and Sir Jack decides to go all 24 on a cultist in order to find out where the evil temple is, the alignment rules don't force Jozan to say, "Hey Jack, cut it out. Torture is not OK." It is Josiah's commitment to not torturing people an Jack's commitment to rooting out the cult by any means necessary that create the conflict. Josiah could probably keep his mouth shut and still be Lawful Good at the end of the day. Or conversely, he could be LN (just like Jack) and still have a problem with it.

[squiggit]

Inconsistencies are a perfectly good reason for Law/Chaos not to be workable. If you can't figure out whether Batman or Hitler are lawful or chaotic from reading the comic and 50 pages of internet discussion, then that's a pretty good argument that the axis is not workable as written.
That seems more like an argument for people having a myriad of opinion than the thing they're arguing about being fundamentally wrong.

I mean, people have been arguing over the nature of good and evil for literally thousands of years, but you seem pretty willing to accept that that axis is still valid.

[Kish]

I never understood why humans in D&D are neutral... their raciel deity (Zarus) is LE, why wouldn't they be?
What setting and/or edition is this question referring to? *googles* Ah. I suspect the answer is "because Zarus' misbegotten existence is mainly an argument for ignoring Races of Destiny."

[Elder_Basilisk]

That seems more like an argument for people having a myriad of opinion than the thing they're arguing about being fundamentally wrong.

I mean, people have been arguing over the nature of good and evil for literally thousands of years, but you seem pretty willing to accept that that axis is still valid.

Good and evil get the benefit of the doubt because:
*It is an important topic that people think about and consider important outside the game
*There is a fair amount of broad agreement on what is generally right and wrong; much of the disagreement is more along the lines of why something is right or wrong or about how to resolve particularly troubling details/situations. There is some genuine disagreement but not nearly as much as there is about Law and Chaos.
*People do not consistently argue in good faith--especially about morality and ethics. There are strong incentives to argue in bad faith. A lot of disagreement falls into the "I like this category of evil"
*People are not all virtuous, and so many have invented codes of conduct that provide them with justification to live how they wish rather than how they ought
*Good and evil are important to the stories I want to tell. I like holy swords that smite demons and sacred relics that burn undead.
*There are consistent and meaningful definitions and understandings of good and evil available even if people don't all agree about those definitions.

Law and Chaos don't get the benefit of the doubt because:
*There are not consistent and meaningful shared definitions. Even getting to a basic level of, "a good act is one that is superogatory or obligatory; an evil act is one that is prohibited" which is pretty universal for good/evil language is more than I've seen anyone do for Law and Chaos.
*They don't correspond to anything people think about or care about outside of the game. D&D players get worked up about whether Batman is Lawful or Chaotic. Everyone else just says, "what the heck are they talking about?"
*There is not much reason to argue in bad faith. I care about what is right and wrong. Describing me or something I care about as Lawful or Chaotic is about as meaningful as if I described it as "ASDF" or "JKL:"
*Whatever the heck they are, I can tell the stories I want to tell just fine--perhaps even more effectively--without them. And that includes the stories which get designated as Law vs Chaos.

[Kish]

Having read some Michael Moorcock, I'm also pretty sure the Lawful vs. Chaotic axis exists because Gary Gygax didn't understand the concept of satire or the possibility that the reader was supposed to disapprove of the protagonist.

[squiggit]

Whatever the heck they are, I can tell the stories I want to tell just fine--perhaps even more effectively--without them
That's fine, but that's an argument for "I don't like this" not an argument for "this is fundamentally bad". Which is perfectly fine, but not when you're arguing the first but trying to present it as the second.

[Elder_Basilisk]

That's fine, but that's an argument for "I don't like this" not an argument for "this is fundamentally bad". Which is perfectly fine, but not when you're arguing the first but trying to present it as the second.

You had asked why I use the Good and Evil axis even if I don't use the Law and Chaos axis. That's why I included more personalized bullet points like that one.

Well if you want the more general version of the argument, see my long post in response to Fizban. It's not just me. I don't think the Law/Chaos axis on the D&D alignment grid helps anyone tell any stories--not even the ones Michael Moorcockesque Law vs Chaos themed stories. IMO, you don't want Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil for those stories; you want just Law and Chaos, or Law, Chaos and Good, or at minimum a seven point alignment system that has neutral good as an option but doesn't have Lawful Good or Chaotic Good because a commitment to Moorcockesque Law or Chaos is not compatible with Good.

[OldTrees1]

I figured we were pretty close to agreement, it just fit better to wait on my response to inconsistency for that part since you both (and many others) mentioned it.

Arg, you're still missing the point. "An action can be required or not required," means that an action can be required, it's the first 2/3 of the sentence. Your original 4 groupings included "An action can be morally required." I don't know how I can make that any more simple. Requiring someone to perform an action is Lawful, you had the category "an action can be morally required," thus you included Law.

Agreed. The only reason I'm still saying you've got Law/Chaos in your morals is above.

Consider the following 4 sentences:
An action can be required or not required
An action can be not required or required
A number can be even or odd
A number can be odd or even

Do you read that as 2/3 lawful, 2/3 chaotic, 2/3 even, and 2/3 odd? I certainly hope not, because they are pairs of logically equivalent sentences.

Also remember I am saying an action can be not required or required, I am not saying an action can be Lawful or Chaotic.

Finally, do you want me to rephrase Morally Obligatory without using the word "required" or "obligatory"?
Morally Obligatory: An action with a moral character such that doing the action is moral and abstaining from the action is immoral. This is in contrast to the actions:
where doing is moral and abstaining is amoral
where doing is amoral and abstaining is moral
where doing is amoral and abstaining is amoral
where doing is amoral and abstaining is immoral
where doing is immoral and abstaining is moral
where doing is immoral and abstaining is amoral

[Hurnn]

If Josiah, LG cleric of St Cuthbert is traveling with LN Sir Jack Bauer and Sir Jack decides to go all 24 on a cultist in order to find out where the evil temple is, the alignment rules don't force Jozan to say, "Hey Jack, cut it out. Torture is not OK." It is Josiah's commitment to not torturing people an Jack's commitment to rooting out the cult by any means necessary that create the conflict. Josiah could probably keep his mouth shut and still be Lawful Good at the end of the day. Or conversely, he could be LN (just like Jack) and still have a problem with it.

I Agree with much of what you said, however D&D is a very absolutist system when it comes to alignment, and act is either evil, good, or neutral. Torture is very definitely evil. Regardless if Josiah is LG or LN Josiah not saying anything/turning a blind eye is actually evil, and clearly Jack torturing cultists is very evil. If both things happen too many times they would both slide down the Good/Evil axis. After all what is it they say about fighting monsters?

[Fizban]

You asked about the origins of D&D Law and Chaos. I answered about the origins of D&D Law and Chaos. Your question is right there in the quote above my comment. What's your problem?
My sincere apologies. I had asked that mostly as a rhetorical question, as in "Who's the first person who messed this up? Lol no way to know," and as such forgot I'd asked it immediately. So I assumed the book list was part of the main argument, and as you can imagine I have little patience when people try to trot out the history instead of dealing with the current build. It's like saying 2e fighters were good when we're talking about 3.5. But that is not what you were saying and I was wrong.

You're the one who said that right and wrong are inherently subjective. I point out that relatively few people even claim to believe that and no-one acts like they believe it. If it's not relevant, why did you bring it up?
My point is that alignment is an objective description of the actor. Ethics/Morality are based on right and wrong, right and wrong are inherently subjective (weather or not most people understand that), and thus Ethics/Morality cannot be objective and perform the same function as alignment.

Again with the accusations of bad faith. You asked. I answered. I can't control what Oldtrees1 thinks.
The line, "As for Prescriptivity/Descriptivity, actual human moral/ethical theories are both," sounds to me like trying to play multiple sides so you can't lose. You keep saying "theories," but if you're going to build an alternative for alignment you need to pick a discreet number of theories to use. So is Moral/Ethical a single theory that can attempt to replace an alignment axis, in which case either Pre/De-scriptive will more primary, or is it a group of theories that can say it is neither? I've been given to understand so far that it has a single root question, which I have deemed subjective and unsuitable.

Any time you use the Good/Evil alignment axis, you are probably applying ethical theory of some kind. Now as soon as you want to go beyond broad strokes, you'll need to pick a particular ethical theory be it natural law theory, utilitarianism, virtue ethics (whether Aristotle's, Phillipa Footes', or Alisdair MacIntyre's, or the one paragraph summary in the PHB, or whatever), but you're going to pick something as soon as a hard question shows up in your game even if it's your own ad hoc made up stuff or what someone on the GiTP said.
I have given my definitions, which may or may not align with ethical theories. Actions are evaluated based on the consequences, with a dash of intent when it seems appropriate. Weather the results or the intent is more important is probably a point of great discussion in ethics or anywhere, but balancing those is still up to the DM. You'd still have to make those choices no matter what groups are laid out.

In my game, if the paladin decides to enslave hobgoblins or go Jack Bauer on a cultist, I'll probably be applying natural law theory to figure out whether or not he's committed an evil act. But it's still going on the Good/Neutral/Evil axis.
As an example: enslaving someone is Evil, because it directly harms them in multiple ways for your benefit. It is not particularly Lawful or Chaotic on it's own, as it could result from and be maintained by either means.

Inconsistencies are a perfectly good reason for Law/Chaos not to be workable. If you can't figure out whether Batman or Hitler are lawful or chaotic from reading the comic and 50 pages of internet discussion, then that's a pretty good argument that the axis is not workable as written.
squiggit already covered this for me: user error does not reduce the value of the system.

Your proposed definition of Law=dogmatism and Chaos=not planning till the situation comes up also illustrates the challenge of trying to fix Law/Chaos. First, it's just your definition. Other people bring significantly different expectations to Law/Chaos as is illustrated every time you get a "my paladin just entered a city where slavery is legal; does being Lawful mean I have to be OK with it?" question on the boards. Many of those expectations are informed by the PHB definition of Law and Chaos which are considerably less coherent. Since the definition is not shared and is significantly different from the default definition in the PHB, you can't expect to take the monster manual and say, "elves are chaotic, order's wrath should smack them down!" because the things that make elves chaotic in the monster manual may not make them chaotic under your definition (and probably don't since elves are given to long-term planning, etc).
If you will not assume the premise then there can be no discussion of the main topic. To the question of "Why is it a grid, not a gradient?", you are basically saying "WotC is dumb and Law/Chaos shouldn't exist." It is not only "my" definition I give, but my best phrasing of the definition that has emerged over years of many people's input, the closest you will ever get to a "real" definition. If that is unacceptable then clearly you will accept nothing.

You also can't hear a player say, "I've got a Lawful Neutral vigilante I'm bringing to your Hell's Rebels game!" and expect that your Lawful will be the same as theirs. In fact, you can expect it probably isn't. And even then, you run into some challenges that you may or may not anticipate. The orc warlord who has burned for revenge against the humans ever since he was a child and so planned a campaign of rapine and pillaging through the human lands--can he be chaotic if he's planned that much? Heck, can he be chaotic if his approach is orc=good, human=bad; doesn't that dogmatism make him lawful? If so, what use is an alignment system where the effective barbarian leader has to be a different alignment from his chaotic followers?
This is why you always discuss alignment before starting a game. As for the orc, insufficient data but what you have described so far is indeed a Lawful bent. It can also be mitigated by other Chaotic tendancies, leaving him Neutral overall on that axis. As another poster mentioned earlier, Hitler was evidently a very Chaotic leader, even though many of his staff were Lawful, so we have a large real-world example to tell us this is no unrealistic warlord. I feel that your repeated reference to vikings/barbarians as go-to examples of Chaos that prove things wrong is uh, kinda your problem. Barbarians aren't chaotic, they only have a non-lawful requirement. Vikings have no game mechanics tied to them. All these examples are built on your assumptions, which I'm finding are quite faulty. Archons and Devils allying against Vikings is your own user error.

C. Presumably the Law/Chaos is supposed to provide an independent axis along which there can be cosmic conflict and game-changing effects. By doing that, I guess it's supposed to enable me to tell stories about those cosmic conflicts between the forces of whatever Law is and the forces of whatever Chaos is, though the definition problem pokes its head up again here. It's pretty hard to care about a conflict we can't even define well. And if we do define it along your lines, it's also really hard to care about the conflict between people the forces of dogmatism and the forces of whatever the hell they feel like this morning. Sounds like they should all see a psychologist and get that fixed.
But if we can figure out a good definition for an independent Law/Chaos axis, why not do it?
C1. What stories does it help me tell again? Not any that I care to tell. No one cares about Law/Chaos. It is not actually a driving force in many (if any) real life conflicts*. This is why 90%+ of published adventures focus on good/evil axis conflicts rather than law/chaos axis conflicts. It is also why, no other major role-playing game has any alignment component that maps directly to the Law/Chaos spectrum as imagined in the D&D grid model.** No one knows what it is (those darn inconsistencies again) and if they did, they mostly would not care until it spilled over into some actual harm or evil in which case the harm and evil is what they'd care about.
To whit, your assumption that Law/Chaos must exist as a justification for cosmic battles or as the focal point of a story. While the outer planes and such have informed much of the development and definitions of usable Law/Chaos, that is not the primary function of alignment. While you don't respond to it until further down, the main use I've given again: illustrating the lines of conflict between people that are otherwise allies. Archons are Good, but if the party tends to work outside the law even when the law would work just fine, their Archon friend will be rather annoyed. An Fey patron may insist they take matters into their own hands, bringing them into conflict with law enforcement when they'd rather not.

Most campaigns revolve around Good vs. Evil, because true enough, most people don't care about Law vs. Chaos (I don't much either). This means that Law/Chaos plays only a secondary role, making a mechanical distinction between the alignment of the Paladin, Pelor, and Champion of Gwynwharf. Since the game is about Good vs. Evil it's not likely to come up as much unless the DM and party choose to make it so, such as by using CN pawns that anti-evil abilities the party has been relying on won't hit, but they can't just switch to anti-chaos because the Rogue is chaotic and will get hit by Order's Wrath or Dictum. Sure is a shame those CN guys got duped. Mostly it helps people with less background or imagination realize that they can be Good and still disagree (such as a kid learning to play), and lets them know that there is a concrete system their abilities can interact with. If they want to Smite Evil, they know that Evil isn't subjective and Smite will work on people that do lots of Evil things.

Law vs. Chaos can still be the center of a story, the key is that it's not usually a macro player in the story. The internal conflict of wanting to do things one way when another way would be more efficient is just as valid for Law/Chaos as it is for resisting the temptation of Evil, or the slow redemption of evil.

This is part of the conversation with Oldtrees1, but it is relevant to my part of the discussion too. What you are demonstrating is a flaw of the alignment system, not a virtue.
Alignment does not and should not exist in order to codify "viewpoints" and "allow conflicts between otherwise allied groups of actors."
Oh no, I fight two-fisted monkey style, everything is for everyone. Continue reading.

1. The idea that all viewpoints need mechanical definition in order to have conflict is flawed. They don't.
Luckily I think I managed to phrase that right on the first go: I never said they needed to be mechanically defined. You can absolutely have a story about a bunch of people in conflict over different views who are all the same alignment, and the alignment system does not preclude it in any way. For people with alignment based abilities, the fact that your foe is not a villain you can Smite serves as a constant reminder that the whole conflict is a tragedy. Or, the fact that the foe you just tried to Smite was not smote could be the clue you need to realize that fighting isn't the answer or you've been played.

That the D&D alignment system might lead anyone to think that there are nine possible viewpoints that provide grounds for conflict is a reason to ditch it.
Now that could be considered a real argument. I still say it's within acceptable bounds however, taking alignment as the only source of conflict is another user error. It makes a good starting point for the uninitiated, but the more experienced or well can usually see that there's more than just alignment, and share that with anyone who doesn't get it. It's a cooperative game for people that read lots of books after all.

3. The actual interaction of alignment with the rules does not support any of the things you just mentioned. In terms of how the players interact with the world, alignment lets paladins fall, provides a couple restrictions to other classes, and lets there be holy swords, spells that hurt bad guys while leaving good people unharmed, and allows paladins and people with detect alignment spells to see how other characters interact with the world (in a very general way). There is nothing in the alignment rules that makes anyone have conflicts with anyone else.
I'm not saying alignment causes conflict, I'm saying that when there's conflict in views, alignment can let it be mechanically expressed. It is true that there are a bare few ways to use it in the system, but again that has more to do with the rest of the system than the definitions on their own. Most game writers don't want to straitjacket people into caring about alignment, so the majority of the game doesn't care, and that's good. A variable level of impact does not make the alignment system worse. DnD 3.5 is great thanks in part to it's wide variety of opt-in systems.

If Josiah, LG cleric of St Cuthbert is traveling with LN Sir Jack Bauer and Sir Jack decides to go all 24 on a cultist in order to find out where the evil temple is, the alignment rules don't force Jozan to say, "Hey Jack, cut it out. Torture is not OK." It is Josiah's commitment to not torturing people an Jack's commitment to rooting out the cult by any means necessary that create the conflict. Josiah could probably keep his mouth shut and still be Lawful Good at the end of the day. Or conversely, he could be LN (just like Jack) and still have a problem with it.
But the rules do say that Josiah cannot use his most powerful Sanctified blessings on Sir Jack, because Jack is not pure enough for the gods to allow it. If they team up with the army of Heironeus, which specializes in carpet bombing evil armies with Holy Smite, Sir Jack must stand well back. It means that if they fight Devils, Josiah cannot rely upon the power of Holy Word, lest he harm Sir Jack, and Devils are as unaffected by Dictum as they. It means that Sir Jack can infiltrate areas guarded by Detect Good, is resistant to the Unholy Blight employed by various evil foes, and can avoid damage from Order's Wrath if a legal loophole pits them against Inevitables. All of these are fairly minor, because DnD is not about alignment based conflict, not primarily. All actors have defined alignments, but how much the players and DM choose to invoke it by the rules is still up to them.



Consider the following 4 sentences:
An action can be required or not required
An action can be not required or required
A number can be even or odd
A number can be odd or even

Do you read that as 2/3 lawful, 2/3 chaotic, 2/3 even, and 2/3 odd? I certainly hope not, because they are pairs of logically equivalent sentences.
You've taken me more literally than I intended. If any part of the sentence relies upon a lawful concept, it has involved law. The idea that you can be required to do something is lawful, but it seems we're using "required" differently.

Finally, do you want me to rephrase Morally Obligatory without using the word "required" or "obligatory"?
Morally Obligatory: An action with a moral character such that doing the action is moral and abstaining from the action is immoral. This is in contrast to the actions:
where doing is moral and abstaining is amoral
where doing is amoral and abstaining is moral
where doing is amoral and abstaining is amoral
where doing is amoral and abstaining is immoral
where doing is immoral and abstaining is moral
where doing is immoral and abstaining is amoral
This however, is getting somewhere. By required you don't mean of the person, but as a condition defining the potential moral value. That's what removes it from suggesting an action and going down that rabbit hole, and instead makes it a description. Ah, language. With that out of the way, I agree that your Moral/Ethical axis does not directly involve Law/Chaos. It will still inevitably crop up when deciding what is moral/immoral due to the subjective nature of right and wrong and the lawful/chaotic tendencies of the viewer, but it's not written into the definitions (as long as you understand the language :smallamused:) and this is no different than how one will likely follow some ethical theory (knowingly or not) in deciding how heavily an action is weighted towards Good or Evil.

And now that I've gone through all that, I will add how this:

*sputter*

Irrelevant? :furious:

Dem's fighting words!
Although addressed by OldTrees1, was still great, if less so now that I realize I'd blown past my own question and jumped to "irrelevant" on the wrong grounds.

I have of course read plenty of stuff, not the same stuff but it inspires all the same. I also wouldn't take that trade, time to be a hero and demand both.

[Taveena]

In both cases, I think, the lack of an alignment restriction is an error. Note that I do not support most alignment requirements; the only ones I see as having any place in the moral-ethical grid system are "any nonlawful", "any nonchaotic", and "any X and/or Y" (e.g. Warlock). The former two are useful for classes that inherently have some sort of code (such as the Paladin) or that inherently rely on impulse and instinct (such as the Berserker), and the latter is useful for classes whose power is gained from entities of specific alignments (such as followers of specific gods).

While this is admittedly extremely tangential, Warlock's alignment is... awkward. Even in the original fluff text it says they're "often chaotic or evil, and many are both", while mechanically they HAVE to be Chaotic or Evil. (Admittedly, a 1:0 ratio of C/E to neither is quite often indeed.) This tends to get really messy because their alignment isn't actually determined by their patron - unlike a Cleric, the granter of the pact has no ability to revoke the granted abilities. It's a one-time exchange.

Hypothetically you could add to the fluff to suggest that Warlocks can ONLY have creatures as patrons that are the same alignment as them, but there are Lawful fey, so it's messy as hell. Why, exactly, a Devil is willing to grant powers to a CG creature but not a LG one is... probably just awkward writing. "Often chaotic or evil"? Sure, because it's outside the normal bounds of society and involves dealing with some massive pricks. "Must be chaotic or evil?" A stretch.

[OldTrees1]

You've taken me more literally than I intended. If any part of the sentence relies upon a lawful concept, it has involved law.
Okay. That makes more sense.


This however, is getting somewhere. By required you don't mean of the person, but as a condition defining the potential moral value. That's what removes it from suggesting an action and going down that rabbit hole, and instead makes it a description. Ah, language. With that out of the way, I agree that your Moral/Ethical axis does not directly involve Law/Chaos. It will still inevitably crop up when deciding what is moral/immoral due to the subjective nature of right and wrong and the lawful/chaotic tendencies of the viewer, but it's not written into the definitions (as long as you understand the language :smallamused:) and this is no different than how one will likely follow some ethical theory (knowingly or not) in deciding how heavily an action is weighted towards Good or Evil.

If doing X is moral and not doing X is immoral, then I ought to do X and ought not abstain from doing X. So the condition of it being a requirement arises from the moral character of the binary states of doing/abstaining.

In some moral dilemmas (like the nearby drowning stranger & distant drowning relative) the moral character of abstaining from a particular action is the focus of the discussion because the moral character of the doing is moral for both options.

[Segev]

I think it easiest to consider the Law/Chaos divide, on a personal level, to be one that asks: do you rely on outside authority and judgment to tell you what your code requires, or do you rely on your own judgment? There is an additional element of how flexible you feel it is based on circumstances, too.

Lawful people tend to be fairly rigid, seeing circumstances as being no excuse for violating their principles. They also tend to rely on a hard-coded set of rules, defined by something external to themselves, to which they refer. Note that this doesn't mean they can't have written that set of rules, themselves; as long as they follow it consistently once they've codified it, they're acting Lawfully. (It's why statisticians determine their thresholds before they make statistical analyses, so that they can't bias their results after seeing them by deciding that "maybe 85% is okay after all" to prove their point.)

Chaotic people tend to be fairly flexible. That doesn't mean they don't have lines they won't cross, nor personal rules or guidelines they won't break. It does mean that they judge each situation on its own merits, and are more concerned with what they think is the right and most expedient way to handle things than with whether or not this means of handling it is consistent with the last way they handled it, nor are they too concerned if they're being inconsistent in their application of logic as to WHY they act in a particular way. They can be consistent, but their consistency tends to be an overall pattern rather than a strict adherence to rule-based decision-making.

[Bohandas]

On another website, I'm having a discussion about how alignment works in D&D. The other person seems convinced that alignment is a linear scale, with LG above NG above CG presumably above the neutral alignments presumably above LE above NE above CE. IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

Here's some literature on the subject

http://principiadiscordia.com/book/70.php

[Schattenbach]

Order vs Chaos actually seems like the biggest conflict within DnD (as Chaotic Good individuals still value order to at least some degree; i.e. to avoid the tyranny of the strong that's commonly found ... and Devils are, at least theoretically, still on the side of Order) with Good vs. Evil just being something that's there be due to variable degrees of selfishness.


Looking at the behavior of animals, they generally A) prioritize themselves over others and B) act on whims rather than principles, which puts most of them at a very solid Chaotic Evil (yes, even cows; CE does not require violence). It wouldn't make sense for Paladins to run around slaughtering animals, hence the rule that animal intelligences ignore normal considerations for alignment and are locked to neutral.

There are actually lots and lots of serious injuries and deaths due to cows feeling irritated and kicking/stabbing/trampeling someone ... cows are by no means non-aggressive, non-violent or harmless (though there being a lot of them helps to increase the victim count) ... the same goes for plenty of other supposedly "harmless" non-predators (which is why, for example, three out of the big five of africa are actually non-predators ... because plenty of non-predators are just as prone - or even more so - to engage in aggressive or violent behaviour that isn#t based on any nice reason like "self-defence" but simply them trying to dominate/bully others with their sheer physical might).

[Yahzi]

On another website, I'm having a discussion about how alignment works in D&D. The other person seems convinced that alignment is a linear scale, with LG above NG above CG presumably above the neutral alignments presumably above LE above NE above CE. IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?
I map alignment onto a particular theory of morality, which holds that everyone understands the same moral rules, but differ in who they apply them to. Basically, the larger of circle of people you regard as moral agents worthy of moral treatment, the more moral you are. This is useful because it maps onto our intuitive moral sense and provides a pretty solid way to judge the alignment of acts.

Alignment: People you treat as moral equals
NG (or pure good): Everybody
LG: Everyone who obeys the rules
CG: Your friends and peers
LE: Anyone who can make you a profit
CE: People you are afraid of
NE: No one, not even yourself

The idea of morality as a grid strikes me as unhelpful and problematic, so I don't use it.

[Segev]

Honestly, I've only really seen morality used as a "grid" in the sense that the gradient maps to it. Usually people will talk about somebody being "very [alignment]" or "only a little [alignment]." And at least in 3e and later editions, the alignment-detection spells only ping off of somebody who is strongly of their alignment and of sufficient power (usually 5 HD or more), or who has a racial or class feature that gives them an aura (Paladins, clerics, anything with an alignment subtype).

[hamishspence]

at least in 3e and later editions, the alignment-detection spells only ping off of somebody who is strongly of their alignment and of sufficient power (usually 5 HD or more), or who has a racial or class feature that gives them an aura (Paladins, clerics, anything with an alignment subtype).

Pathfinder, yes.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/detect-evil

3.0 and 3.5, no:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

the aura is faint, but it's there.

4e never had any kind of Detect Alignment spell as far as I know - 5e pretty much swaps it for Detect Fiend and Detect Celestial (and I think some classes get Detect Fey).

[Gnaeus]

I'd add that looking outside D&D within RPGs doesn't help much. Look at Palladiums alignment system.
Principled. Scrupulous. Unprincipled. Anarchist. Miscreant. Aberrant. Diabolic.

The more evil you get, the more chaotic you are.

Or warhammer, where the forces of "Chaos" are iconically represented by demon mutants (not that Law is good there, but chaos is way evil)

You don't have to play 4e to get weird linear alignments.

[digiman619]

I'd add that looking outside D&D within RPGs doesn't help much. Look at Palladiums alignment system.
Principled. Scrupulous. Unprincipled. Anarchist. Miscreant. Aberrant. Diabolic.

The more evil you get, the more chaotic you are.

Or warhammer, where the forces of "Chaos" are iconically represented by demon mutants (not that Law is good there, but chaos is way evil)

You don't have to play 4e to get weird linear alignments.

Except that Abberant is explicitly Lawful Evil; to quote Rifts (the core rule book; the second printing if that matters), it say that an Aberrant character, while still evil, will:
* Always keep his word of honor
* Not lie to or cheat those worthy of his respect
* Never kill an innocent, particularly a child. Might harm or kidnap one, but never kill.
* Generally treats prisoners with respect
* Never betray a friend.

As opposed to a Scrupulous character, who only has to tell the truth to other good characters. To those who haven't read these alignments, that's essentially saying that a NG character only has to keep his word to other NG and LG ones an can lie and beat up/strongarm neutral or evil characters... as well as those CG scrubs.

tl;dr it's not as straightforward as you are implying.

[Gnaeus]

Except that Abberant is explicitly Lawful Evil; to quote Rifts (the core rule book; the second printing if that matters), it say that an Aberrant character, while still evil, will:
* Always keep his word of honor
* Not lie to or cheat those worthy of his respect
* Never kill an innocent, particularly a child. Might harm or kidnap one, but never kill.
* Generally treats prisoners with respect
* Never betray a friend.

As opposed to a Scrupulous character, who only has to tell the truth to other good characters. To those who haven't read these alignments, that's essentially saying that a NG character only has to keep his word to other NG and LG ones an can lie and beat up/strongarm neutral or evil characters... as well as those CG scrubs.

tl;dr it's not as straightforward as you are implying.

Right, but Scrupulous (CG) is clearly less good than principled. And aberrant is clearly (for all the reasons you point out) less evil than diabolic. It is essentially ranking alignments as LG/CG/LN/CN/LE/CE in that order with a couple of odd side steps.

[Psyren]

Alignment on a gradient doesn't work because it implies that the ends are somehow better or worse than the middle. So you end up with "Lawful Good = Best Good" and "Chaotic Evil = Worst Evil." This requires wilful disregard for the efforts of notables like Asmodeus and Corellon Larethian as somehow being less consequential to the multiverse than their morally similar but ethically dissimilar counterparts.

[digiman619]

Alignment on a gradient doesn't work because it implies that the ends are somehow better or worse than the middle. So you end up with "Lawful Good = Best Good" and "Chaotic Evil = Worst Evil." This requires wilful disregard for the efforts of notables like Asmodeus and Corellon Larethian as somehow being less consequential to the multiverse than their morally similar but ethically dissimilar counterparts.

That explains it perfectly. Unfortunately, part of that falls at the feet of Paladins; they are the base class whose fluff is "brave and honorable knights of all that is [Good]", and can only be LG, therefore LG must be the most [Good] of all the Good alignments.

[Segev]

Alignment on a gradient doesn't work because it implies that the ends are somehow better or worse than the middle. So you end up with "Lawful Good = Best Good" and "Chaotic Evil = Worst Evil." This requires wilful disregard for the efforts of notables like Asmodeus and Corellon Larethian as somehow being less consequential to the multiverse than their morally similar but ethically dissimilar counterparts.

Technically not true. It's like the Mercador projection of the globe: it only makes it look that way. Alignment is more accurately modeled by the Great Wheel (of the outer planes).

Alignment maps fairly easily to a unit circle. If you are as Lawful as it is possible for you to be, you are exactly Neutral, morally. Same if you are as Chaotic as it is possible to be. Similar rules apply for G and E: you are exactly ethically Neutral if you are as Good or Evil as you can possibly be.

You don't have to be "1" away from True Neutral. You can be exactly neutral (0,0) on both axes. You can have any combination of alignment as long as the "r" distance from True Neutral doesn't exceed "1."

So an LG person who is the most paladiny Lawful Good gal you ever met will have roughly 0.7 "Good" and 0.7 "Law," because she is not able to be AS Lawful as the guy with "1" in Law and "0" in Good/Evil, nor can she be QUITE as Good as the guy with "1" in Good and "0" in Law/Chaos. She has to compromise just a little on both to uphold both to the extent she does. Sometimes, a wrong is permitted because a greater wrong might occur if the Law is inconsistently applied. Other times, a Law must be sidestepped because it has been twisted to create too great an evil. (A classic example is the honorable and honest cop who loudly talks about how they are going to have to search a good person's domicile for specific kinds of contraband that they won't admit they suspect this good person has, because they know this good person uses it for Good, and then proceeds to drag heels and otherwise be looking just the wrong way such that, if any contraband is present, it isn't when the LG cop looks. And he thus doesn't have to report on it.)

[Psyren]

Technically not true. It's like the Mercador projection of the globe: it only makes it look that way. Alignment is more accurately modeled by the Great Wheel (of the outer planes).

Alignment maps fairly easily to a unit circle. If you are as Lawful as it is possible for you to be, you are exactly Neutral, morally. Same if you are as Chaotic as it is possible to be. Similar rules apply for G and E: you are exactly ethically Neutral if you are as Good or Evil as you can possibly be.

You don't have to be "1" away from True Neutral. You can be exactly neutral (0,0) on both axes. You can have any combination of alignment as long as the "r" distance from True Neutral doesn't exceed "1."

So an LG person who is the most paladiny Lawful Good gal you ever met will have roughly 0.7 "Good" and 0.7 "Law," because she is not able to be AS Lawful as the guy with "1" in Law and "0" in Good/Evil, nor can she be QUITE as Good as the guy with "1" in Good and "0" in Law/Chaos. She has to compromise just a little on both to uphold both to the extent she does. Sometimes, a wrong is permitted because a greater wrong might occur if the Law is inconsistently applied. Other times, a Law must be sidestepped because it has been twisted to create too great an evil. (A classic example is the honorable and honest cop who loudly talks about how they are going to have to search a good person's domicile for specific kinds of contraband that they won't admit they suspect this good person has, because they know this good person uses it for Good, and then proceeds to drag heels and otherwise be looking just the wrong way such that, if any contraband is present, it isn't when the LG cop looks. And he thus doesn't have to report on it.)

So Devils are less lawful than Inevitables, and Demons less chaotic than Slaadi? Not sure how much I buy that.

[Segev]

So Devils are less lawful than Inevitables, and Demons less chaotic than Slaadi? Not sure how much I buy that.

They are, though. Inevitables aren't going to twist the letter of the law to violate its spirit. They won't care about the spirit, of course, but they also aren't going to twist the letter. They will take the most straight-forward application of it.

Slaadi are a harder one, because they're actually written far more E than G, most of the time. That said, Demons forsake some of their Chaotic natures for heavy predictability due to their almost slavish devotion to their personal vices. Their evil makes them more easily controlled and less rebellious against strong authority. CN is most easily defined by its freedom, even from its own vices. CE is definitely giving that freedom from their own vices up.

[Psyren]

They are, though. Inevitables aren't going to twist the letter of the law to violate its spirit. They won't care about the spirit, of course, but they also aren't going to twist the letter. They will take the most straight-forward application of it.

I see it more that Devils actively seek to violate the spirit, while Inevitables merely don't care. But both will adhere to the letter to a tee, thus both are equally lawful.



Slaadi are a harder one, because they're actually written far more E than G, most of the time. That said, Demons forsake some of their Chaotic natures for heavy predictability due to their almost slavish devotion to their personal vices. Their evil makes them more easily controlled and less rebellious against strong authority. CN is most easily defined by its freedom, even from its own vices. CE is definitely giving that freedom from their own vices up.

Slaadi are indeed more problematic due to their routine malice. One of many reasons I prefer PF's Proteans.

[arrowed]

I have an analogy that's been brewing my head: the green man crossing model.
So at a road with cars, a pedestrian can cross at a point, and there's a set of green/red lights for when to cross.
A LAWFUL character will wait until the green man flashes to cross the road, even if there are no cars.
A CHAOTIC character will cross whenever they think they can, and may not even look at the lights.
A NEUTRAL character on the law-chaos axis will usually wait for green when the road is busy, but will ignore the lights if it's convenient to do so.
A GOOD character will help others cross the road.
An EVIL character will shove to get across the road.
A NEUTRAL character on the good-evil axis won't generally help or hinder others while crossing.
Dunno if this is a good description. Thoughts?

[Segev]

I see it more that Devils actively seek to violate the spirit, while Inevitables merely don't care. But both will adhere to the letter to a tee, thus both are equally lawful.Not equally. The Devil, much like the Paladin, will be willing to "look the other way" so that he technically lies within the bounds of the law, but is achieving his goal. Sure, he might STRONGLY SUSPECT that the files he left on his desk that detail his department's secret plans were read by the business-devil who he left alone in his office for a few minutes while he got a Lemure to snack on, but he doesn't KNOW it, so he doesn't have to follow the protocols for dealing with such security violations. And he doesn't know for SURE that the money-equivalent left on his desk when he got back was, in fact, left by the business-devil, so it's not like he willfully accepted a bribe. He just...found some money lying around.

The Inevitable wouldn't risk it, and, if he strongly suspected, would seek to be certain of the Lawfulness of all activities involved.

The Devil is LE; he's not going to overtly and knowingly perform an illegal act. But he'll skirt right up to the edge and abuse plausible deniability to the utmost to get what he wants.


Slaadi are indeed more problematic due to their routine malice. One of many reasons I prefer PF's Proteans.Now I feel a challenge to write a version of Slaadi that live up to the archetype they're supposed to have. Without making them loony-toon cartoons.


I have an analogy that's been brewing my head: the green man crossing model.
So at a road with cars, a pedestrian can cross at a point, and there's a set of green/red lights for when to cross.
A LAWFUL character will wait until the green man flashes to cross the road, even if there are no cars.
A CHAOTIC character will cross whenever they think they can, and may not even look at the lights.
A NEUTRAL character on the law-chaos axis will usually wait for green when the road is busy, but will ignore the lights if it's convenient to do so.
A GOOD character will help others cross the road.
An EVIL character will shove to get across the road.
A NEUTRAL character on the good-evil axis won't generally help or hinder others while crossing.
Dunno if this is a good description. Thoughts?
Interesting analogy.

To play with it in light of my position that LG is as far from TN as NG or LN are, let's look at interactions of them.

A LAWFUL GOOD character will wait until the green light flashes to cross, but would be willing to break that rule if it was safe to do so and somebody desperately needed help.
A LAWFUL EVIL character will wait for the green light, but will shove and abuse others to make sure he crosses as soon as it does. (This one doesn't illustrate well; there's no conflict I can think of to make the LE person have to choose which he'd follow.)
A CHAOTIC GOOD character would be perfectly willing to cross whenever he thought it was safe, but would recognize that obeying the lights when he thinks it's safe but there are oncoming cars will also enable the oncoming cars not to panic-stop.
A CHAOTIC EVIL character likewise lacks conflict between Evil and Chaos here.

[Elkad]

I have an analogy that's been brewing my head: the green man crossing model.
So at a road with cars, a pedestrian can cross at a point, and there's a set of green/red lights for when to cross.
A LAWFUL character will wait until the green man flashes to cross the road, even if there are no cars.
A CHAOTIC character will cross whenever they think they can, and may not even look at the lights.
A NEUTRAL character on the law-chaos axis will usually wait for green when the road is busy, but will ignore the lights if it's convenient to do so.
A GOOD character will help others cross the road.
An EVIL character will shove to get across the road.
A NEUTRAL character on the good-evil axis won't generally help or hinder others while crossing.
Dunno if this is a good description. Thoughts?

With the addendum that many chaotic and/or evil types will obey the rules if they think authority is looking, yes.
The potential inconvenience of getting a ticket isn't worth the time saved.

Note that the Lawful Evil person may deliberately take advantage of that green light to the detriment of others. Stopping in the crosswalk for the sole reason of delaying a driver attempting to turn across his path. In a car he'd jam on the brakes for a yellow signal, trying to get the car behind him to cause an accident. Etc.

[Psyren]

Not equally. The Devil, much like the Paladin, will be willing to "look the other way" so that he technically lies within the bounds of the law, but is achieving his goal. Sure, he might STRONGLY SUSPECT that the files he left on his desk that detail his department's secret plans were read by the business-devil who he left alone in his office for a few minutes while he got a Lemure to snack on, but he doesn't KNOW it, so he doesn't have to follow the protocols for dealing with such security violations. And he doesn't know for SURE that the money-equivalent left on his desk when he got back was, in fact, left by the business-devil, so it's not like he willfully accepted a bribe. He just...found some money lying around.

The Inevitable wouldn't risk it, and, if he strongly suspected, would seek to be certain of the Lawfulness of all activities involved.

The Devil is LE; he's not going to overtly and knowingly perform an illegal act. But he'll skirt right up to the edge and abuse plausible deniability to the utmost to get what he wants.


What you're describing is to me not a difference in ethics, but a difference in morals. The reason the Inevitable seems less proactive in your scenario is because they generally don't have any long-term goals beyond the immediate situation. The Law/Chaos axis is all about how you get something done, while the Good/Evil axis is about what you're ultimately trying to accomplish. Inevitables are thus largely reactionary; this isn't because they're more Lawful, it just means they don't have any goals beyond maintaining the status quo, which puts them in a more passive role by default.

If you compared your Devil to an Archon however, the Archon would be just as willing as the Devil is to look the other way on a technicality and stay within the law's letter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0600.html) - they'd just do so in a way that ended up helping someone rather than hurting them. When a law has gaps or conflicts, the Inevitable will postpone action entirely and follow a process to get that hole closed or clarified, while both the Archon and the Devil will stick with it as written but use whichever interpretation best favors their moral judgement. I don't see either approach as being more Lawful - rather, I see one as being morally neutral while the other has moral consequences depending on the direction you go.

[Flickerdart]

A LAWFUL GOOD character will wait until the green light flashes to cross, but would be willing to break that rule if it was safe to do so and somebody desperately needed help.
A LAWFUL EVIL character will wait for the green light, but will shove and abuse others to make sure he crosses as soon as it does. (This one doesn't illustrate well; there's no conflict I can think of to make the LE person have to choose which he'd follow.)
A CHAOTIC GOOD character would be perfectly willing to cross whenever he thought it was safe, but would recognize that obeying the lights when he thinks it's safe but there are oncoming cars will also enable the oncoming cars not to panic-stop.
A CHAOTIC EVIL character likewise lacks conflict between Evil and Chaos here.

Good and Evil can be thought of in terms of cost and benefit. Good will sacrifice to help others, Evil will sacrifice to hinder others.

A Lawful Good character will wait until the green light, and will caution people not to cross. He will actively interfere when someone tries to cross, verbally and possibly physically but nonviolently (blocking their path, etc).
A Lawful Evil character will wait until the green light. If there's a crowd, he will try to convince the crowd to jaywalk, and start crossing once they do - power in numbers means that cars are more likely to slam the brakes, and his ingroup (pedestrians) benefits at the cost of the outgroup (drivers).
A Chaotic Good character would cross when he believes it's safe, encouraging others to follow if it's safe enough.
A Chaotic Evil characters would cross whether or not he believes it's safe, encouraging others to follow.

[Elkad]

A Chaotic Evil characters would cross whether or not he believes it's safe, encouraging others to follow.

At risk to himself? Better to push another pedestrian into the road, causing an accident (and traffic stoppage), so he can cross.

[Segev]

What you're describing is to me not a difference in ethics, but a difference in morals. The reason the Inevitable seems less proactive in your scenario is because they generally don't have any long-term goals beyond the immediate situation. The Law/Chaos axis is all about how you get something done, while the Good/Evil axis is about what you're ultimately trying to accomplish. Inevitables are thus largely reactionary; this isn't because they're more Lawful, it just means they don't have any goals beyond maintaining the status quo, which puts them in a more passive role by default.

If you compared your Devil to an Archon however, the Archon would be just as willing as the Devil is to look the other way on a technicality and stay within the law's letter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0600.html) - they'd just do so in a way that ended up helping someone rather than hurting them. When a law has gaps or conflicts, the Inevitable will postpone action entirely and follow a process to get that hole closed or clarified, while both the Archon and the Devil will stick with it as written but use whichever interpretation best favors their moral judgement. I don't see either approach as being more Lawful - rather, I see one as being morally neutral while the other has moral consequences depending on the direction you go.
Yes, an archon would also bend the rules. That's part of my point. The LG or LE will test and bend the rules and will risk the good of others or themselves for the sake of the rules. They do not hold pure good, law, or evil as the highest virtue. This, they are no further from TN than a LN being is. They are less good than the NG, less evil than the NE, and less lawful than the LN.

[Flickerdart]

At risk to himself? Better to push another pedestrian into the road, causing an accident (and traffic stoppage), so he can cross.
Chaotic Evil is, ultimately, self-destructive (as is every non-TN alignment, but in many ways more so). A CE character may believe he is too skilled to really be in danger. Forcing someone else to bear the risk certainly is an option, if the character believes he can get away in the resulting confusion, but that's still based on a (possibly over-)confidence in his own abilities.

[Bohandas]

Slaadi are a harder one, because they're actually written far more E than G, most of the time.

There really should be some kind of Life Slaad to cancel out the death slaadi

[Fizban]

There really should be some kind of Life Slaad to cancel out the death slaadi
Really more that there just shouldn't be a Death Slaad. I dunno about the original Planescape, but these are supposed to be your pure avatars of chaos and then you go and make the top end Evil. That's the same as if the Marut was Good.

MM gives slaadi motivations as such: Reds are mostly trying to avoid the bigger fish, Blues want to fight, and Greens and Grays want magic. That all works, Inevitables are about enforcing the laws of the multiverse, Slaadi are abut a few simple personal desires. And then Death Slaad shows up and is all "waaaagh murder lolz" and wrecks the thing. Sure the entry admits they're more corruption of chaos by evil, but where's the pure chaos option then? Bonus: go to the Epic Level Handbook for the next two, White and Black, and you'll find that Death evolves into White, going from evil back to always chaotic neutral, actually stronger than the usually chaotic neutral given in the weaker slaad entries. And then when it turns Black it gets evil again, but only sometimes.

[P.F.]

Slaadi are a harder one, because they're actually written far more E than G, most of the time.

Slaadi aren't really equivalent to the other extraplanar exemplars. Unlike Inevitables, Devils, Angels, etc., Slaadi have an alignment which is "usually" instead of "always." This puts them more in the category of things like Gith or Mephits than that of Eladrim or Tanar'ri. What's more, while they may start out as pure chaos, it is strongly implied that they become progressively more cruel, spiteful, and sadistic as they advance, culminating in Death Slaadi which "represent a corruption of pure chaos by evil rather than true exemplars of it."

This does leave a notable gap in the cosmological beastiary, as there don't appear to be a class of purely chaotic Limbo-dwelling outsiders untempered by moral tendencies, which does seem like the slot that Slaadi would otherwise inhabit.

[kellbyb]

Slaadi aren't really equivalent to the other extraplanar exemplars. Unlike Inevitables, Devils, Angels, etc., Slaadi have an alignment which is "usually" instead of "always." This puts them more in the category of things like Gith or Mephits than that of Eladrim or Tanar'ri. What's more, while they may start out as pure chaos, it is strongly implied that they become progressively more cruel, spiteful, and sadistic as they advance, culminating in Death Slaadi which "represent a corruption of pure chaos by evil rather than true exemplars of it."

This does leave a notable gap in the cosmological beastiary, as there don't appear to be a class of purely chaotic Limbo-dwelling outsiders untempered by moral tendencies, which does seem like the slot that Slaadi would otherwise inhabit.

If you ask me, it kind of makes sense that the the forces that represent everything chaotic, unpredictable, and shifting would not have a singular pinnacle of their ideals.

[Psyren]

Yes, an archon would also bend the rules. That's part of my point. The LG or LE will test and bend the rules and will risk the good of others or themselves for the sake of the rules. They do not hold pure good, law, or evil as the highest virtue. This, they are no further from TN than a LN being is. They are less good than the NG, less evil than the NE, and less lawful than the LN.

I don't see it as bending the rules, but rather interpreting them favorably (for good or evil ends.) Inevitables meanwhile don't care about the ends, so they're willing to do nothing until the ambiguity is resolved. "Doing nothing" doesn't make them more Lawful; it makes them more Neutral. Which is exactly what they are.

[Anlashok]

This, they are no further from TN than a LN being is.
Well that's patently untrue. You're two steps away. two steps is more than one step, by definition.



They are less good than the NG, less evil than the NE, and less lawful than the LN.

That's kind of bollocks too. L-C just has to do with means and capabilities. That a NG character is less inclined toward freedoms than a CG character and less rigid than an LG character doesn't make them inherently more good.

In fact you could just as easily argue the opposite, NG lacks the order and organization of LG, which makes them inherently less capable at combating evil for that lack of network, while NG's unwillingness to fully dedicate itself toward individuality and freedom prevents them from taking every possible step to do good like CG is willing to do.

Therefore the inherent wishiwashiness of NG makes it clearly the least good of the three alignments.

Or not, because the whole premise is kind of ridiculous to begin with.

That works even better on the side axis, by the by. Neutrality on the good-evil axis is defined by insufficient altruism to be called Good, but also enough of a moral compunction to be unwilling to bring significant harm to others in normal circumstances.

Which means the purest expression of Law or Chaos must be Lawful or Chaotic Evil, as only an Evil character is going to be willing to go to absolutely any length in the name of their cause.

[Knaight]

Well that's patently untrue. You're two steps away. two steps is more than one step, by definition.


Only if you assume that a) the steps are necessarily the same size and b) the projection of step 2 onto step 1 is at least 0.

[Bohandas]

Really more that there just shouldn't be a Death Slaad. I dunno about the original Planescape, but these are supposed to be your pure avatars of chaos and then you go and make the top end Evil. That's the same as if the Marut was Good.

MM gives slaadi motivations as such: Reds are mostly trying to avoid the bigger fish, Blues want to fight, and Greens and Grays want magic. That all works, Inevitables are about enforcing the laws of the multiverse, Slaadi are abut a few simple personal desires. And then Death Slaad shows up and is all "waaaagh murder lolz" and wrecks the thing. Sure the entry admits they're more corruption of chaos by evil, but where's the pure chaos option then? Bonus: go to the Epic Level Handbook for the next two, White and Black, and you'll find that Death evolves into White, going from evil back to always chaotic neutral, actually stronger than the usually chaotic neutral given in the weaker slaad entries. And then when it turns Black it gets evil again, but only sometimes.

I think a life slaad would be really effective at causing chaos though. Imagine waking up one morning and going to the kitchen for breakfast only to find that the toaster's sprouted legs and wandered off and somebody's brought the ham back to life


That works even better on the side axis, by the by. Neutrality on the good-evil axis is defined by insufficient altruism to be called Good, but also enough of a moral compunction to be unwilling to bring significant harm to others in normal circumstances.

Which means the purest expression of Law or Chaos must be Lawful or Chaotic Evil, as only an Evil character is going to be willing to go to absolutely any length in the name of their cause.

Except that several of the LN exemplars are implied to come by the neutral component of their alignment by the same means that animals and vermin do, ie. not having enough of a grasp of morality to be truly blameworthy