Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

danielxcutter

2017-07-20, 02:36 AM

While both Lawful and Chaotic characters can have codes of conduct, Chaotic characters are more likely to make 'exceptions' if it is required.

Interesting. Acting in a way they believe to be in the spirit, if not the letter of the law, would also be a more Chaotic thing, right? Though Lawful beings can certainly do that too.

For me personally, Lawful means you thrive on structure and in a structural society. Office workers, police and soldiers. Teachers, to a degree (npi). They tend to work for the benefit of a greater collective and be a gear in a machine.

Chaotics do much better in less-defined systems. Most obviously this is where you get your artists, but any profession where individuality and improvisation are key likely attracts more Chaotics.

Edit:

Neutrals can be one of two things: Either they are very adaptable, or they just fail to really work in either. Or they focus more on the moral (Good/Evil) axis no matter the method.

Because that is another great way to distinguish the axis: Good/Evil is what you do, while Law/Chaos is how you tend to go about doing it.

I see! That sounds good too.

Edit:

Firstly, have a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread). The Chaotic Good one was (IIRC) the first one made of the bunch, and there's a decent selection for both Chaos and Law as far as advice goes. The differences between the LG and NG and CG handbooks, for example, could give some insight into how this axis changes Good characters, and so on for Evil and Neutral as well. Unfortunately I can't recommend the Chaotic Neutral one, on account of it (apparently deliberately, as a metajoke?) being left unfinished by the ******* who made it. EDIT: I'm sure if you had specific questions on a particular aspect of CN, they'd be willing to answer your questions, though, since it seems like they've got half an idea of what the unfinished parts were intended to be.

Oh yeah those handbooks. I remember the CG and LE ones best, but I've read some of the others too.

Edit: Waaaait a second. :smallamused:

Secondly, this (http://piecesofeights.com/index.php?comic=1) is the first page of a webcomic that follows the adventures of a vaguely D&D-esque party in an ongoing plot that focuses more on Lawful vs Chaotic rather than Good vs Evil.

I'm sure there's other movies/shows/books/webcomics that have explored a similar divide, but that's the one I'm familiar with.

Thanks, but honestly I don't have much spare time left on my hands right now... might get to that eventually, but not that soon I guess.

weckar

2017-07-20, 02:37 AM

Sorry, I was kind of making edits as I went :P

OldTrees1

2017-07-20, 03:27 AM

Interesting. Acting in a way they believe to be in the spirit, if not the letter of the law, would also be a more Chaotic thing, right? Though Lawful beings can certainly do that too.

Yes, although I can expand on that difference:

Lawful:
When one consistently hold to a moral conviction, people can rely on the security that consistency offers. People go to doctors in part because they trust the doctors will hold to the hippocratic oath even if I have many healthy organs that are in high demand by other patients.

Chaotic:
When one is flexible about a more conviction, you can better react to unforeseen circumstances. People go to doctors in part because they trust the doctor will try to solve their individual case rather than apply the most idealized version of a one-size-fits-all treatment.

Individuals are each a mixed bag when it comes to good vs evil due to the breadth of topics covered. Individuals are each even more of a mixed bag when it comes to law vs chaos (for exactly the same reason).

danielxcutter

2017-07-20, 03:28 AM

Yes, although I can expand on that difference:

Lawful:
When one consistently hold to a moral conviction, people can rely on the security that consistency offers. People go to doctors in part because they trust the doctors will hold to the hippocratic oath even if I have many healthy organs that are in high demand by other patients.

Chaotic:
When one is flexible about a more conviction, you can better react to unforeseen circumstances. People go to doctors in part because they trust the doctor will try to solve their individual case rather than apply the most idealized version of a one-size-fits-all treatment.

Individuals are each a mixed bag when it comes to good vs evil due to the breadth of topics covered. Individuals are each even more of a mixed bag when it comes to law vs chaos (for exactly the same reason).

Interesting... I see.

Florian

2017-07-20, 03:31 AM

For me, telling Good from Evil is fairly easy. Looking at what a being does, and why, is often enough.

However, Law and Chaos are a bit harder. Whether they have an oath or code of conduct doesn't seem right - Chaotic people can have those too. A personal promise, so to speak. And then there's Elan from Order of the Stick. He's Chaotic Good, but he used to be a big fan of the rules of drama prior to his character development.

I've heard of "internal vs. external". It's whether you do something because you "want" to, or "have" to. Is this accurate?

Also, Neutral(on the Law-Chaos scale) is a bit harder.

Not being strongly Lawful or Chaotic isn't enough for me.

Recognizing authority isn't enough, either. A Chaotic Good person wouldn't screw around with the police if the police are actually competent and doing their job. If the laws allow a Chaotic Evil psychopath to do as he wishes, he probably won't care about them either. Lawful people won't always blindly follow orders either - a Paladin would rebel against a tyrant, for example.

Soooo... could you guys help me out with the ropes? RPing advice would help greatly - all my current characters are NG, but I'll likely make other characters in the future.
Might as well... Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel...
-DXC-

Ditch the (legacy) Alignment naming-conventions and focus on what they really represent.
"Order" - "Individuality" and "Altruism" - "Egoism".

Alignment basically is about how you see or understand the world to function, it is not, as we see in a lot of alignment-based discussion, a straight-jacket, "prescriptive" or to be confused with "mortal laws".

Let´s start with the L-types: This is the believe that a strong society is best for the "common good", firmly putting "order" before the "individual". Only as part of the whole do the thrive.
LG: Order tempered by mercy.
LN: Order without Mercy.
LE: Order corrupted for personal gain.

Let´s look at the C-types: This is the believe that a strong and unshackled individual is best for the "common good". Only as individuals, we thrive for greater accomplishments.
CG: Individuality and respect.
CN: Individuality without shackles.
CE: Individuality above everyone/everything else.

Now let´s look at the N-types: This is the balanced stance. You understand and respect all four sides and seek a synthesis thereof for the "common good".
NG: Order as necessary, individuality as possible, mercy and respect in all things.
LN: Order without mercy.
TN: Things happen.
CN: Individuality without shackles.
NE: Order to corrupt for personal gain, Me above everything else.

I think this should give you an answer.

Edit and afterthoughts: Keep in mind that we all have certain backgrounds based on our country (and/or culture) of birth, that´s why we see/understand some thing as "good" and "evil" that don´t actually have to do with the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" (notice the capital letters).

danielxcutter

2017-07-20, 03:39 AM

Hmm, not bad, but let's go through this, shall we?

Ditch the (legacy) Alignment naming-conventions and focus on what they really represent.
"Order" - "Individuality" and "Altruism" - "Egoism".

Fair. That makes sense.

Alignment basically is about how you see or understand the world to function, it is not, as we see in a lot of alignment-based discussion, a straight-jacket, "prescriptive" or to be confused with "mortal laws".

I suppose?

Let´s start with the L-types: This is the believe that a strong society is best for the "common good", firmly putting "order" before the "individual". Only as part of the whole do the thrive.
LG: Order tempered by mercy.
LN: Order without Mercy.
LE: Order corrupted for personal gain.

While I agree with LG and to an extent LN, I disagree with LE. LE is not always personal gain. It's one of the more iconic examples, but it's far from universal. If "personal gain" means whatever the particular LE being's agenda is, maybe, but it doesn't sound like that.

Let´s look at the C-types: This is the believe that a strong and unshackled individual is best for the "common good". Only as individuals, we thrive for greater accomplishments.
CG: Individuality and respect.
CN: Individuality without shackles.
CE: Individuality above everyone/everything else.

This is good, nothing to really disagree with here.

Now let´s look at the N-types: This is the balanced stance. You understand and respect all four sides and seek a synthesis thereof for the "greater good".
NG: Order as necessary, individuality as possible, mercy and respect in all things.
LN: Order without mercy.
TN: Things happen.
CN: Individuality without shackles.
NE: Order to corrupt for personal gain, Me above everything else.

I really like your interpretion of NG. Though I disagree with NE's "Order to corrupt for personal gain" part. Or really, just the "to corrupt" part. Did you mean "to exploit" perhaps?

I think this should give you an answer.

It's not bad, but it's not perfect either.

Jopustopin

2017-07-20, 03:47 AM

Hey buddy,

I've always found this description of the alignments the BEST at explaining the differences between them.

http://wiki.avlis.org/Alignment

weckar

2017-07-20, 03:48 AM

I disagree with the Altruism V Egoism stance. To me it was Always more an Idealism V Pragmatism thing. meh.

Uckleverry

2017-07-20, 04:02 AM

I agree with Florian's position. If you look at the descriptions of Good and Evil, it's clear that it's a spectrum between altruism and egoism. Or in other words, how much empathy do you have? For everyone -- Good. For your own people/tribe/nation -- Neutral. Only care about yourself or a select few to a degree -- Evil.

Law and Chaos are more nebulous, but I agree with the collectivism and tradition (Law) vs. individuality and progressivism (Chaos) viewpoint. Makes it more understandable in practice. Although there's also the idea that Law represents honesty and Chaos dishonesty.

Esprit15

2017-07-20, 04:11 AM

I was going to say something new here, but Florian beat me to it and gave a far more thorough version of the conclusion I've come to as well.

Florian

2017-07-20, 04:15 AM

@weckar:

Understandable, but wrong. "Optimal outcome" and "Quickest solution" can work for any alignment.
It only will get complicated once we start mixing out modern-day feelings about "justice", "due process" and "equality" in.

@danielxcutter:

It´s interesting that you can´t seem to find a grip on the "Evil" position.

Edit: Let me try to elaborate. What we talk about is nine very different ways to "get things done", basic philosophies that each in their own way see themselves as being the pinnacle of what "common good" should be all about. (No-one understand themselves as being "evil" or "punishable")

Your question starts with "I suppose?" and goes over the LE and personal gain, while having answered half of it in your initial post. What you seem to miss is that we´re trained to see things as binary, good or evil, black or white, that´s why we have a marked problem when it comes to the neutral stance. Going by how we´re taught to understand it, you´re either for or against something, and vice versa. In our discussion culture, things mostly are not simply because they re.

weckar

2017-07-20, 06:38 AM

gkathellar

2017-07-20, 06:40 AM

It may help to consider what the scaled-up, cosmic versions look like.

Law is about form, structure, hierarchy, unity, and harmony. Mechanus embodies this principle - it is a literal machine of dharma, in which every part serves a common, perfect goal indistinguishable from its means. Law's exemplars, the Modrons, are incapable of and unwilling to question their hierarchy. They are constant even in number - if one dies, a lower-ranking Modron is instantly promoted, and a new Modron of the lowest rank is created on the spot. This even applies to their master, Primus, because law's purpose is uniform and transparent, and every part of the machine is ultimately derived of the same substance, and can therefore substitute for any other. The purest form of law is perfect internal consistency without privilege. In LG Celestia, the mechanical strictness of this hierarchy is dispensed with, and Archons follow their betters out of respect and altruism. In the LE Nine Hells, the opposite is true: Hell is a machine founded on inequality and privilege.

Chaos is about spontaneity, potential, competition, individuality, and change. Limbo is nothing and everything, a sea of flowing possibility in which anything can become anything else, and anything can happen. Its exemplars, the Slaad, once embodied this infinite variety, until one of their mightiest betrayed chaos to help Primus create the Spawning Stone to delay his inevitable irrelevance. True Slaad are still born, though, and are pillars of individuality alternately straining against and working with each other as suits the moment. Pure chaos is a place where anything can happen, even law, where *all* things are totally free to pursue their desires, and there is infinite potential for beauty and ugliness without privilege. In the CE Abyss, this kind of possibility strains against and despises the existence of everything other than itself as an intrusion on its will. In CG Arborea, in the other hand, individuals lose the material shackles of form and need, and are freed to act out their better natures.

Darth Ultron

2017-07-20, 07:23 AM

While I agree with LG and to an extent LN, I disagree with LE. LE is not always personal gain. It's one of the more iconic examples, but it's far from universal. If "personal gain" means whatever the particular LE being's agenda is, maybe, but it doesn't sound like that.

Lawful Evil does not only have to be personal gain, it can be gain for a group or an idea. The Darleks of Doctor Who are LE, and none of them care about personal gain. The same can be said of a Star Wars Stormtrooper.

At it's more basic LE is ''following orders'', but ''willing to do anything''. If you tell a Stormtrooper ''kill everyone in this village''(like at the opening of The Force Awakens), they pull out their guns and blast away.

In general, good is ''for others'' and evil is ''for myself'' and neutral is ''for both equally''.

For the Chaotic/Lawful it is not ''recognizing authority'' but more of a ''belief or respect for authority''. A lawful person thinks/believes the authority is always right, in a general sense. And they put their faith and trust in the authority and you hear them say things like ''it's not the best system in the world, but it is the best one we got.'' The Chaotic person will ''recognize the authority'' enough not to get caught or get into trouble. But they in general don't think the authority is right and don't put their faith or trust in it. A chaotic person will do it themselves.

Lets take Iron Mans Armor Wars. Ok, so a Bad Guy Business Man steals Starks high tech weapons data and sells them to criminals. The lawful side of this is...yawn...Stark goes to the justice system and sues the Bad Guy for ''theft of intellectual property'' and then sits around for years until it goes to trial and then argues it in court and hopes to win in court and accepts whatever the court rules. This is not what Tony Stark did, he took the chaotic way. He, personally, when out and stole back or destroyed all his high tech data, and then personally goes after every single criminal(and the non-criminals too) that had all ready bought and was using his tech...and he let nothing stop him, did not care about the law or anything else, until he got them all (and he did).

Florian

2017-07-20, 07:33 AM

I think the internet has made it clear that even the concept of alignment is nebulous enough (and the definitions shifting by edition enough) that none of us really need to proclaim we know the one truth now, do we?

Wrong on so many levels.

"The Internet" actually shows us the erosion of morality and ethics.

danielxcutter

2017-07-20, 07:33 AM

Wrong on so many levels.

"The Internet" actually shows us the erosion of morality and ethics.

Wait, what? :smallconfused: Seriously?

Florian

2017-07-20, 07:44 AM

Wait, what? :smallconfused: Seriously?

Seriously, yes.

Take your time and compare word and deed of people who proclaim themselves "Christians", "Buddhist", "Muslim" or "Communist". Most of the times, huge difference between professed morality and deeds.

This brings us back full circle to the topic: Either you life your alignment, or you don´t. No grey areas here.

Edit: We´re so used to fluid alignment and arguing our position, we apparently have a hard time switching to the "straight" track.

Eit 2: We´re talking about objective morality here. Basically, that means you broadly fall into one of nine sets, outcome non-negotiable. Each of those sets is right and true in its own right, with absolutely no need to sweet-talk or cushion it in any way.

danielxcutter

2017-07-20, 08:31 AM

Seriously, yes.

Take your time and compare word and deed of people who proclaim themselves "Christians", "Buddhist", "Muslim" or "Communist". Most of the times, huge difference between professed morality and deeds.

This brings us back full circle to the topic: Either you life your alignment, or you don´t. No grey areas here.

Edit: We´re so used to fluid alignment and arguing our position, we apparently have a hard time switching to the "straight" track.

Eit 2: We´re talking about objective morality here. Basically, that means you broadly fall into one of nine sets, outcome non-negotiable. Each of those sets is right and true in its own right, with absolutely no need to sweet-talk or cushion it in any way.

Well, regardless of whether I agree with you or not, maybe we shouldn't talk about things that might get the flarping thread locked?

Red Fel

2017-07-20, 08:50 AM

Might as well... Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel...

Yo!

However, Law and Chaos are a bit harder. Whether they have an oath or code of conduct doesn't seem right - Chaotic people can have those too. A personal promise, so to speak. And then there's Elan from Order of the Stick. He's Chaotic Good, but he used to be a big fan of the rules of drama prior to his character development.

Point the first: Don't use OotS as your milestone. Love the comic, or else I probably wouldn't be here, but even the Giant has acknowledged that he plays a bit fast and loose with the rules for the sake of narrative. And that's fine; that's part of what I like about the comic. But what that means is that you can't necessarily point to one of the characters and say, with authority, "That's what this alignment is."

I've heard of "internal vs. external". It's whether you do something because you "want" to, or "have" to. Is this accurate?

"Internal vs. external" usually refers to the source of a Lawful character's code - that is, whether he is Lawful for self-imposed reasons (e.g. a personal code of ethics) or for reasons imposed by others (e.g. a knightly code of chivalry or religious code of conduct).

If, instead, you're trying to compare Lawful and Chaotic, the better question is this: "If this rule inconvenienced me, under what circumstances would I break it?" A Chaotic character tends towards the "Whenever I please" end of the spectrum, whereas a Lawful character tends towards the "Never" or "Only under the most dire of circumstances" end of the spectrum.

Also, Neutral(on the Law-Chaos scale) is a bit harder.

It can be. Or, you can simply think of it as Good or Evil without regard to Law/Chaos. It's not about rules and it's not about freedom; it's not about tradition or personal expression; it's about doing what's Right/Wrong, irrespective of all other considerations.

Recognizing authority isn't enough, either. A Chaotic Good person wouldn't screw around with the police if the police are actually competent and doing their job. If the laws allow a Chaotic Evil psychopath to do as he wishes, he probably won't care about them either. Lawful people won't always blindly follow orders either - a Paladin would rebel against a tyrant, for example.

All great points.

Soooo... could you guys help me out with the ropes? RPing advice would help greatly - all my current characters are NG, but I'll likely make other characters in the future.

Well, before I get into things, let me start by quoting.

Lawful Evil does not only have to be personal gain, it can be gain for a group or an idea. The Darleks of Doctor Who are LE, and none of them care about personal gain. The same can be said of a Star Wars Stormtrooper.

At it's more basic LE is ''following orders'', but ''willing to do anything''. If you tell a Stormtrooper ''kill everyone in this village''(like at the opening of The Force Awakens), they pull out their guns and blast away.

I don't generally expect to enter a thread agreeing with Darth Ultron, but this is accurate. While it's easy to peg Evil as "ego" or "selfishness," that's an incomplete picture. Don't look at Evil as "gain for me," but rather as "gain for mine" - that is, my group, my organization, my society. Now, some Evil characters might define "mine" as "me," and that's fine, but not all do. Anyway, that's a bit of a sidetrack, since you're asking about L-C, not G-E.

For the Chaotic/Lawful it is not ''recognizing authority'' but more of a ''belief or respect for authority''. A lawful person thinks/believes the authority is always right, in a general sense. And they put their faith and trust in the authority and you hear them say things like ''it's not the best system in the world, but it is the best one we got.'' The Chaotic person will ''recognize the authority'' enough not to get caught or get into trouble. But they in general don't think the authority is right and don't put their faith or trust in it. A chaotic person will do it themselves.

Again, this is an excellent point. Lawfuls may follow the rules because they see merit to the rules; they may obey those in authority because they respect the idea of authority. Chaotics may follow the rules because they recognize that the rule-makers have the power to enforce them, and Chaotic doesn't mean stupid.

So, some RP advice? Let me give you a few simple idea stubs. These are not exclusive; obviously, there is no one way to play any alignment. But perhaps these will give you an idea for each one.

LG: He swore allegiance to an ascetic order. He's not the most cultured man, not the most elegant. He can be coarse and crude at times. But every day, he tries to be a better person, and to let others see a good person by example. He strives to keep his monastic oaths whenever possible. Although he occasionally slips, he atones and makes up for his mistakes. He is Good because he strives to help others and be a positive influence; he is Lawful because he adheres to a code of religious conduct.

LN: She was an orphan, taken in by the Church of Wee Jas at a young age. She was taught respect for knowledge, the dead, and above all else, authority. She spends her spare time keeping her cottage neat and tidy, and tending her rose garden. But whenever she receives a missive from the Church, she puts on her cloak and mask, locates the target, and kills them, swiftly and efficiently, with neither malice nor joy. She is the sword of her goddess. She is Neutral because her murders make her non-Good, but her lack of cruelty and minimum of self-agency keep her from being truly Evil; she is Lawful because of her absolute obedience to her sworn masters.

LE: "Anything you need, for a price." That's his promise, and he always keeps it. He never breaks his word, he always delivers exactly what was requested, and he always, always exacts payment. Everyone knows that dealing with him only ends badly; nobody has ever come out ahead on a deal with him. He preys on the weak and the desperate, those who believe that they have no other choice. He is Evil because his actions are manipulative and designed to maximize the suffering of others; he is Lawful because he will never, ever violate a contract.

CG: "Freedom is the right of all sapient beings." She is called the breaker of chains, the destroyer of tyrants. She travels the land, raising the downtrodden, visiting the sick, and crushing those who would oppress others. She is Good because she always acts to benefit those around her; she is Chaotic because she upturns the status quo in favor of the weak and oppressed.

CN: Not even once.

CE: "Death is the proof of my existence." He kills because it lets him feel, and it feels amazing. He respects power, because power is the ability to prove oneself to the world. He doesn't kill his friends, because they're powerful, and because with them, he can become powerful, too. He doesn't kill random victims, because that would upset his friends. But he kills anyone else - let them point him at a target, and he will feel all those wonderful feelings. He is a walking weapon, a thinking predator, and he lives to test his own existence against those of others. He is Evil because of his barely-contained bloodthirst; he is Chaotic because the only thing he respects isn't rules, or promises, but power.

Hope those give you an image.

Florian

2017-07-20, 08:54 AM

Well, regardless of whether I agree with you or not, maybe we shouldn't talk about things that might get the flarping thread locked?

Talking about alignments is always a sensible topic that is sure to hurt/enrage one or the other participant. That can´t be avoided. How we conduct this discourse and how we handle the RL things we mention is what matters.

weckar

2017-07-20, 02:03 PM

Nobody but you has been bringing RL into this, because it is irrelevant.

Hackulator

2017-07-20, 02:11 PM

Its important to remember that even within the alignments there is a spectrum. Not all chaotically aligned creatures are equally chaotic.

For me, to simplify it as far as I can..

Chaos = personal freedom, individuality, lack of specified goals

Law = systems, groupthink, striving towards perfection or a specific goal

Remember as I said, even within the alignments there is a spectrum, so this doesn't mean a chaotic character can't have goals.

Afgncaap5

2017-07-20, 02:28 PM

I think it's worth noting that you can have characters of very different alignments perform the same action and still be within the alignment, just depending on the context of it all. That's why I feel that alignment is best applied descriptively rather than applied as a methodology. That doesn't always mesh well with D&D rules, though.

Having said that, I think Red Fel's examples (and included reminder that there's no one way to play any alignment) are well worth remembering. I also try to liken the three good alignment brackets to DC's big three super heroes. Batman changes a lot depending on the writer, but in general his portrayal is one of a good person who has certain rules that he never violates for fear of going too far, so I'd place him as Lawful Good. Superman, meanwhile, is very tempting to describe as a Lawful person, for he definitely presents himself as such, but I think an examination of his career paints a picture of more of a Neutral person. He denies any agency that seems to threaten his loved ones even if it's an agency he's usually allied with and makes surprising choices for what he determines to be the "greater good". I'd never call him a Chaotic person, but he's definitely not someone who's going to adhere to any real codes of conduct beyond those that he feels are most right. Wonder Woman, meanwhile, has a very proactive habit of doing good and fighting evil. Unlike Batman who'll never kill and Superman who'll hold off on killing until it's very obviously the last resort, she'll take a life if she thinks that it'll save the most people, but she'll still never do it carelessly or thoughtlessly.

Now, those are all just my interpretations, and different writers could throw them off (Superman will often wind up sacrificing morals to work for sinister government agencies if people like Frank Miller want to incorporate Superman as an unreasonable bad guy for a story or something, and Wonder Woman's chaotic zeal for doing the good thing immediately might instead be written as a calculated approach to making sure that good is being done rather than something that she does at the spur of the moment and holy cow does Batman have a lot of different writers with lots of different opinions on things). However, I think that they can serve as good mileposts a lot of the time.

Only tangentially related, but I also wanna say this: don't confuse "whimsy" for "chaos" and don't confuse "seriousness" for "law." I've had way too many players give me their rigidly defined, strongly articulated, unyielding, calculated explanations for why their allegedly surprising antics are "technically chaotic", and I can't help but feel they're missing the point.

Nifft

2017-07-20, 03:06 PM

Ditch the (legacy) Alignment naming-conventions and focus on what they really represent.
"Order" - "Individuality" and "Altruism" - "Egoism".

Alignment basically is about how you see or understand the world to function, it is not, as we see in a lot of alignment-based discussion, a straight-jacket, "prescriptive" or to be confused with "mortal laws".

Let´s start with the L-types: This is the believe that a strong society is best for the "common good", firmly putting "order" before the "individual". Only as part of the whole do the thrive.
LG: Order tempered by mercy.
LN: Order without Mercy.
LE: Order corrupted for personal gain.

Let´s look at the C-types: This is the believe that a strong and unshackled individual is best for the "common good". Only as individuals, we thrive for greater accomplishments.
CG: Individuality and respect.
CN: Individuality without shackles.
CE: Individuality above everyone/everything else.

Now let´s look at the N-types: This is the balanced stance. You understand and respect all four sides and seek a synthesis thereof for the "common good".
NG: Order as necessary, individuality as possible, mercy and respect in all things.
LN: Order without mercy.
TN: Things happen.
CN: Individuality without shackles.
NE: Order to corrupt for personal gain, Me above everything else.

I think this should give you an answer.

Edit and afterthoughts: Keep in mind that we all have certain backgrounds based on our country (and/or culture) of birth, that´s why we see/understand some thing as "good" and "evil" that don´t actually have to do with the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" (notice the capital letters).

Yeah this is good stuff.

That's quite similar to where I began my own interpretation of Law / Chaos.

IMHO the one really important thing to remember for the sake of discussion: Both sides are right.

Law and Chaos are fundamentally opposed to each other, but they are also both wildly successful, and both are embraced by entities that are very intelligent and vastly powerful.

So, for me to be able to use an interpretation of the Law/ Chaos divide, there's got to be at least a kernel of truth in both of them.

IMHO the Law = Organizational / Chaos = Individualist division is excellent because it supports this criteria -- both are sympathetic, and have kernels of truth upon which I can hang any number of sane, relate-able characters.

It's not the only right way, but it's very good.

ShedShadow

2017-07-20, 03:21 PM

I have always kind of regarded it as personal integrity:

Does the person still abide the rules when there is no one watching?
Does he grovel before authority but speaks evil of them behind their back?
Do they accept authority based on law (e.g. a king) instead of dominion by power?
Do they keep promises if they said they would?
Do they resent or uphold instituted organizations and systems?
Do they keep orderd to the letter or just the gist or even completely disregard them?
How much value does a promise have to this person and, more importantly, from this person?
Justice being defined as treating equals equally and unequals unequally, do they do so or do they treat everyone else as less than them and feel entitled?

I think these are some questions you might want to consider in your search for the spirit of law and chaos.

Segev

2017-07-20, 04:53 PM

Chaotic people are results-oriented. That isn't to say that they're all "Ends Justify The Means" types, but that they are far less concerned about how you get there than that you do get there. Those who are said to "follow a code" simply include a set of principles as a part of their "ends." Usually these are things like respecting others, at least on the northerly end of the morality axis. They have principles that make up their code, but those principles are guidelines, ideals to which to live up to, not specific rules to follow religiously. They almost never care about the letter of a rule; they may well care strongly about the spirit.

Lawful people are process-oriented. They also have goals, and will work towards them, but they view the process of getting there as paramount. It's not merely that how you do it is important, it's that you have to have rules for how to do it to be sure you do it right. They can and will interpret the rules to best accommodate their goals, but they won't break them, and many will strive not to bend them beyond what they view as "reasonable." Lawful types may or may not care about the spirit of a rule, but they absolutely care about the letter.

The neutral region of this axis is measured by just how far one is willing to bend the rules. Just how much the spirit is meant to override the letter. And just how often one is willing to outright ignore or break the rules.

Most ethically neutral people obey the rules unless the rules become inconvenient, and then obey them as long as they see a good reason to do so. Neutral people will often jaywalk across an empty street with good visibility. In general, if it's a rule or law that you know "most people" will ignore "sometimes," then it's something a neutral person is likely to ignore when convenient. Chaotic people take it to the next level, which is how you can tell the difference. They break rules that most people wouldn't, if they don't see a genuinely useful purpose to following it and see a convenient purpose in disobeying it.

Lawful people, faced with an unclear situation, will look to see if there's an obvious instruction set for it first. Neutral people will do similarly, but give up sooner. Chaotic people will not bother, and both they and the neutrals who gave up looking for it will just try solutions until they figure it out.

Florian

2017-07-20, 05:43 PM

Nobody but you has been bringing RL into this, because it is irrelevant.

It´s sometime necessary to bring up how things in RL function to point out how and why using the alignment system often gets mishandled or misunderstood.

In the long run, it´s also good to understand why and on what basis certain errors get repeated in D&D when authors don´t understand what they´re doing, or why we´ll never see a "Book of Glorious Chaos" and "Book of Strict Law".

It will also help explain why there´s so often problems with the N-axis, especially with CN. (How comes that the upper echelon of Slaadi turn towards evil?)

For this, we must talk about the fact that our RL systems, be they religious, political or ethical, only know and promote the duality of reward and punishment, declaring themselves to be "true" and the opposite stance to actually be impossible and there being no middle ground.

This is in stark contrast to the core concept of the alignment system, with each of the nine alignments being equally "true" and the basis for a model society based around it.

Sadly, that got royally effed up, especially with the Great Wheel. At that point, we ought to talk why the old Moorcock Chaos vs. Order model got slowly replaced with a very well known Good vs. Evil theme and why we suddenly have the "reward" of the Upper Planes and the "punishment" of the Lower Planes, with Neutrality fading into the background. This is our RL influence.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-07-20, 06:32 PM

For me, Lawful means you accept something greater than yourself as source of your moral judgements, and expect others to recognize the same source. The more lawful you are, the more universal you make it, and the less your personal judgement plays a role in deciding what is right.

For example, Inevitables are really bloody lawful: they believe there is some universal standard (I'm not sure where they got that standard, to be honest, but it's there), and they believe everyone in the entire Great Wheel should live according to those rules, as you can see in their Monster Manual descriptions. Inevitables never question whether they are doing the right thing; they simply do not consider themselves able to judge, only compare their actions to this supposedly universal standard.

Being really Chaotic means you accept only yourself as source of moral judgements. For CE types, it full-on egomaniac: you accept only yourself as a source of moral judgements for all people. For CG types, it's probably more along the lines of "each individual is sovereign in their judgement" or however you want to phrase it.

As always, most folks are not totally Lawful or Chaotic. Most people recognize some others (a group greater than themselves) as valid source of moral judgement, but then give themselves greater weight than any individual in that group. Trouble is, what is "something greater than yourself"? Two people together are greater than one alone, but in D&D, one deity is also much greater than one mortal... there is a pretty high GINI coefficient of moral bigness in the D&D multiverse.

eldskald

2017-07-20, 07:41 PM

As always, most folks are not totally Lawful or Chaotic. Most people recognize some others (a group greater than themselves) as valid source of moral judgement, but then give themselves greater weight than any individual in that group. Trouble is, what is "something greater than yourself"? Two people together are greater than one alone, but in D&D, one deity is also much greater than one mortal... there is a pretty high GINI coefficient of moral bigness in the D&D multiverse.

Sadly, that got royally effed up, especially with the Great Wheel. At that point, we ought to talk why the old Moorcock Chaos vs. Order model got slowly replaced with a very well known Good vs. Evil theme and why we suddenly have the "reward" of the Upper Planes and the "punishment" of the Lower Planes, with Neutrality fading into the background. This is our RL influence.

That's all pretty awesome. I always compared RL behaviors and classified them with D&D alignments. It souns silly, but it's really helpful when trying to understand people and learn more about things. A thing most folks here pointed out is that people aren't as chaotic or as lawful as each other, there are many grey areas. Some behaviour patterns are hard to classify, and even in the same group of people with the same beliefs, there are some clearly chaotic folks and other clearly lawful ones. That means that this D&D way to classify beliefs is not perfect. In fact, it's kinda crappy IMHO.

One way we could learn more about the Order-Chaos axis is to ask people here how they think, what they believe and where they think they stand in the axis. For the OP, maybe you don't understand that axis too well because you are neutral in it. Listening to chaotic people might teach you about chaos, and the same is true for law.

What do you guys think? Where do you stand in the axis?

OldTrees1

2017-07-20, 08:05 PM

One way we could learn more about the Order-Chaos axis is to ask people here how they think, what they believe and where they think they stand in the axis. For the OP, maybe you don't understand that axis too well because you are neutral in it. Listening to chaotic people might teach you about chaos, and the same is true for law.

What do you guys think? Where do you stand in the axis?

Interesting experiment/poll.

What should I do next? What I ought to do. It matters not what form moral perfection takes. Moral truth might be as simple as 3 rules to always follow, or it may be as complicated as an infinite number of exceptions to the norm.

So the obvious first detail is that my mind treats Order-Chaos axis as subservient to the Good-Evil axis. I would only do Order in the name of Good and only do Chaos in the name of Good. Obviously this is not the case for every human, some have Good-Evil as subservient to Order-Chaos.

The second detail is in how I described both extremes. I described the chaotic truth possibility as an infinite number of exceptions to some norm. This language is biased towards describing Chaos as a deviation form Order. While I do realize the bias as merely that, it does indicate I lean towards Order over Chaos.

So on the Order-Chaos axis I am Neutral with orderly leanings.

tomandtish

2017-07-20, 08:30 PM

It´s sometime necessary to bring up how things in RL function to point out how and why using the alignment system often gets mishandled or misunderstood.

Yes, but some of the specific things you were bringing up are the type of things that tend to get threads locked regardless, is the point that was being made.

Back on topic, another example from other media would be the Vorlons/Shadows from Babylon 5. When we start learning about the Shadows, everyone is expected to think they are the evil ones, and the Vorlons are the good ones.

But as time goes on you learn the Vorlons were more about order, and cared enough about their message that they were willing to wipe out planets that had Shadow colonies on them even if the other inhabitants were unable to do anything about them.

And the Shadows were about freedom and growth (read "chaos") and felt that conflict was the best way for races to evolve.

Elkad

2017-07-20, 09:37 PM

I like using traffic laws. Possible I've used it in one of the big alignment threads already.

Lawful Good. Thinks traffic laws are a good thing, and should be heavily enforced to keep people safe (even themselves). Laws that inconvenience people are fine, it's worth it for the safety benefit to society. Speed limits, helmet/seatbelt laws, mandatory insurance, etc. At an empty intersection with a mile of visibility in every direction, he'll still stop for the stop sign. Zealots will report speeders, or block the fast lane on the freeway to "keep others from speeding". He'd never hit an old lady crossing against the light, because he'd be driving cautiously and see her.

Chaotic Good. Speed limits are stupid, as long as he isn't endangering others. Not wearing a helmet only risks himself. Insurance should be voluntary, but he is still liable for any damage he causes. Deliberately or carelessly endangering others is still wrong, so Reckless Driving and other serious crimes still exist.
Note that that means if he is in a lawful society, he still speeds, runs a radar detector, rolls through stopsigns when it's safe to do so, etc. He may be limited by his fear of punishment, but if he thinks nobody is looking and it looks safe, he goes for it. But if a little old lady steps out in front of him, he'll wreck his car and risk harm himself to avoid the accident.

Lawful Evil. Uses traffic laws as Revenue Generation and as an excuse to hassle drivers to fish for other crimes. Sets speed traps on the safest portion of the roads, where people naturally tend to drive a little faster. Passes laws banning old "unsafe" vehicles to enrich his friends at the auto dealership/factory. Either passes unfair laws or enforces the law unfairly, to oppress those he doesn't like. Commits Insurance Fraud. He'll deliberately not avoid an accident if the other driver is at fault, in order to sue him for damages, or even cause an accident where he is at fault if the gain is greater than the weighted risk of potential punishment. If the little old lady steps out in front of him against the light, may hit her, but will report it. And sue her estate for damages to his car, plus "mental anguish" and whatever else he can come up with.

Chaotic Evil. Max Max free-for-all. Rules are for the weak or cowardly. That little old lady should have stayed out of the intersection (or off the sidewalk), because he isn't stopping for her. If nobody sees it, he doesn't even need to stop, just leave her to die. And she doesn't need all that stuff in her purse any more, so he takes what he wants.

Zanos

2017-07-20, 11:45 PM

Lot of people in this thread are describing Neutral with respect to Law-Chaos.

If you're using "willingness to break a rule" as a metric, it's more like this:

L: Will reluctantly, if ever, break a rule. Even if it's inconvenient to them.
N: Will break rules if they're inconvenient enough and they think they can get away with it.
C: Will frequently break rules, even if it's inconvenient to them to break it.

That last part is important. Chaotic people aren't uber-pragmatists. If they only broke the law when it was the best available option they would be Neutral. If you're Chaotic, sometimes you break the law just to spite it, because by being Chaotic you've established that you have an ideology. Chaotic people will sometimes spite institutions just because they are institutions, even if they have merit otherwise.

Remember, if you're looking for a character that is absolutely selfish with no regards to process, but is extremely pragmatic, they're probably NE, not CE.

danielxcutter

2017-07-20, 11:55 PM

Spiting them can be minor, right? Like pulling a harmless prank on someone for being a stick-in-the-mud?

eldskald

2017-07-20, 11:57 PM

Interesting experiment/poll.

What should I do next? What I ought to do. It matters not what form moral perfection takes. Moral truth might be as simple as 3 rules to always follow, or it may be as complicated as an infinite number of exceptions to the norm.

So the obvious first detail is that my mind treats Order-Chaos axis as subservient to the Good-Evil axis. I would only do Order in the name of Good and only do Chaos in the name of Good. Obviously this is not the case for every human, some have Good-Evil as subservient to Order-Chaos.

The second detail is in how I described both extremes. I described the chaotic truth possibility as an infinite number of exceptions to some norm. This language is biased towards describing Chaos as a deviation form Order. While I do realize the bias as merely that, it does indicate I lean towards Order over Chaos.

So on the Order-Chaos axis I am Neutral with orderly leanings.

I gave the idea and didn't started it myself...

I believe I am Chaotic, both in personality and beliefs. That's funny, since I was raised in orderly enviroments. I studied many years in a military school, which is lawful as eff. I got in because that was the best school in my city, so I thought the price was worth it. Someone here described lawful as being a cog in the machine. That's exactly the same words I used to describe the military at my school! Brainwashed tools, cogs in the machine. "It's pointless to question it, just do it", "a given mission is an accomplished mission!". I cringed at that. I just can't do something without knowing why I'm doing and without agreeing with it. I followed their rules just to not get expelled, even though I was always forgetting something and was out of their standard all the time. Eventually, I realized I only needed to not get caught breaking the rules instead of following them. It was all about calculated risks and dealing with consequences. Of course that led to some disasters, but I guess that's part of growing. Even though my grades were great, they also had a behavior grade and mine was crappy. Father always told me that discipline and responsibility would make me better at school and a better person. While I listened to him, I just failed at it... I simply don't work like that. I couldn't even keep a schedule, my production rate goes at random inspiration spikes, and once I accepted it, I started to work a lot better. At home, I was the unruly child. My brother usually complied to make everyone happy, but I couldn't stand injustice. I always spoke out my mind and questioned my elders' authority when I thought they were unfair or wrong. That led to lots arguing with my mother, but once we accepted each other, we got along well. Father always tried to convince me with logical arguments, and that's what worked with me.

In resume, consequences is mostly what I care about. I get that rules were made to some end, but sometimes that end is unnecessary today or they don't get the expected outcome and people don't realize it. So the cogs just keep spinning and the machine, now purposeless, keeps functioning. But what is real in the end, are the consequences. You can do whatever you want, as long as you can deal with the consequences.

While I like the idea of continuing the experiment, I think it deviates from the original thread's purpose. Should I start a new thread for that? Are there people interested in the experiment?

danielxcutter

2017-07-21, 12:02 AM

While I like the idea of continuing the experiment, I think it deviates from the original thread's purpose. Should I start a new thread for that? Are there people interested in the experiment?

Yes, yes, and yes. :smallcool:

FreddyNoNose

2017-07-21, 12:43 AM

Good and Evil are opposite ends of a spectrum as are Law and Chaos. Each are bound by those choices. Being chaotic doesn't mean flexible or do what I want because if he wants to go around being lawful he is operating against his alignment which he is not free to do and remain chaotic. Chaotic doesn't mean freedom in that way. Neutrals are the most flexible in that respect.

Lawful is predictable and order. Chaotic is unpredictable and anti-order. So many DMs cut the Chaotic players slack in games especially when it comes to following rules, agreements and all those types of thing. The common reason is well the character is chaotic good so the good part is doing following the deal which really misses the point. It isn't that they won't follow some agreements, but perhaps they wouldn't enter that situation without thinking of it in a chaotic way. And that chaotic way could simply be best self interest. But rather than split the treasure
evenly, perhaps they dice for treasure. Or even finders get first choice of keeping an item or to pool it with the party later.

The thing is what is the character doing the majority of the time. Not just in combat but in making deals. Is the PC doing mostly chaotic actions or something else. In the long run, how he is playing is what determines the reality of it. It is like rational trust, the truth comes out eventually.

If a DM isn't going to hold the chaotic characters do performing chaotically rather than often lawful, then he should just toss out alignment.

Esprit15

2017-07-21, 01:38 AM

Lot of people in this thread are describing Neutral with respect to Law-Chaos.

If you're using "willingness to break a rule" as a metric, it's more like this:

L: Will reluctantly, if ever, break a rule. Even if it's inconvenient to them.
N: Will break rules if they're inconvenient enough and they think they can get away with it.
C: Will frequently break rules, even if it's inconvenient to them to break it.

That last part is important. Chaotic people aren't uber-pragmatists. If they only broke the law when it was the best available option they would be Neutral. If you're Chaotic, sometimes you break the law just to spite it, because by being Chaotic you've established that you have an ideology. Chaotic people will sometimes spite institutions just because they are institutions, even if they have merit otherwise.
Chaotic is not dumb. Many ancient, powerful dragons with mental stats that are above the mundane limits of humanoids are chaotic. Demon lords are chaotic. Flipping off the police doesn't make you chaotic, it makes you an idiot.

Florian

2017-07-21, 02:24 AM

@danielxcutter:

Let´s revisit a prior point that´s left unanswered so far. I´ve already mentioned it, but we must work with the assumption that each alignment can create a "model society" that´s able to function and will actually thrive when running using its own rules. That also means avoiding two common pitfalls, namely the basic assumption that some concepts are automatically tied to certain alignments, like "laws" to "Lawful", as well as assuming that certain alignment-based societies will always self destruct and people are generally better off changing their society.

That´s why I used "corrupt" instead of "exploit" in my prior examples, to reflect that it´s not only about the individual but ultimately the desire of the individual to affect changes in society to be more in line with their own values.

This is key to clearing up some apparent contradictions and further explore the depth of what it really means. (and also, why we continue to make errors based on our RL sensibilities)

ExLibrisMortis

2017-07-21, 03:54 AM

What do you guys think? Where do you stand in the axis?
I'm fairly lawful. I believe the world, in the form of official and unofficial organizations, can tell me--by default--what the limits are of what is right and proper, with the understanding that I choose how to act within that. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and my local town's littering rules are valid sources of morality.

That said, not every organization is a valid source. If I decide that an organization is not, or a greater group of others does, we can overrule the default. That's necessary in any case, because otherwise you'd end up with a load of contradictory messages. Given the number of opinions out there, this leaves you with considerable leeway to choose your own limits. In practice, Earth just isn't conducive to ultra-Law or ultra-Chaos.

Darth Ultron

2017-07-21, 07:07 AM

Spiting them can be minor, right? Like pulling a harmless prank on someone for being a stick-in-the-mud?

For any alignment minor, even medium things don't count ''against'' the person...unless they start to do them all the time.

Though if you make a character that is ''alignment x'', and you all ways are doing things that don't fit that alignment, then you picked the wrong alignment.

Elkad

2017-07-21, 07:31 AM

Chaotic is not dumb. Many ancient, powerful dragons with mental stats that are above the mundane limits of humanoids are chaotic. Demon lords are chaotic. Flipping off the police doesn't make you chaotic, it makes you an idiot.

What if I can get away with it? Maybe with a small investment of my time, or an inconsequential amount of money?

The guys stuck on a repeat loop of "Are you detaining me? Please articulate the crime you suspect me of committing. Am I free to go?" anytime they encounter an officer of the law (in the US anyway), when they haven't done anything illegal, and could end the encounter by answering a simple question are a fine example of Chaotic.

So is riding by the speed trap - that as a local I know is there every single day - with the cruise control set for 9mph over the limit. I'm thumbing my nose at the law, and even if I get pulled over, it's a $10 ticket (and $140 in court costs :smallfurious: ), and my sacrifice may keep some other guy from getting a $1000 "mandatory reckless driving" for doing 11mph over in a perfectly safe fashion.

Florian

2017-07-21, 07:47 AM

Spiting them can be minor, right? Like pulling a harmless prank on someone for being a stick-in-the-mud?

Funny. You remind me on a heated discussion based on a minor rule in Horror Adventures.

No, you don´t assign an imaginative value to acts and then start to tally up the result. You either are or are not "aligned" to a principle. Counting the value of individual actions only help to assess whether you manage to stay true to a principle or have strayed too far afield.

@Elkad:

You confuse the result with the intention.

Zanos

2017-07-21, 07:56 AM

Chaotic is not dumb. Many ancient, powerful dragons with mental stats that are above the mundane limits of humanoids are chaotic. Demon lords are chaotic. Flipping off the police doesn't make you chaotic, it makes you an idiot.
I never said it was, but neither is Lawful. If you aren't neutral on the L-C axis, you sometimes do things that are not optimal because, to some degree, you have an ideological bent that causes you to occasionally be impractical. If your alignment is to do whatever feels like the best option, you're neutral on the L-C axis. If your beliefs fall to the wayside in the face of being pragmatic, welcome to neutralilty.

People don't have to be stupid to not always make optimal decisions.

Florian

2017-07-21, 08:12 AM

I never said it was, but neither is Lawful. If you aren't neutral on the L-C axis, you sometimes do things that are not optimal because, to some degree, you have an ideological bent that causes you to occasionally be impractical. If your alignment is to do whatever feels like the best option, you're neutral on the L-C axis. If your beliefs fall to the wayside in the face of being pragmatic, welcome to neutralilty.

People don't have to be stupid to not always make optimal decisions.

I have no words..... (or I´m not drunk enough).

Zanos

2017-07-21, 09:04 AM

I have no words..... (or I´m not drunk enough).
I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. If you act Chaotic when it's convenient and act Lawful when that's convenient, you're neutral.

Elkad

2017-07-21, 10:47 AM

I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. If you act Chaotic when it's convenient and act Lawful when that's convenient, you're neutral.

Not if convenient just means "avoiding problems I don't want to deal with". If you are Chaotic in the absence of law, but knuckle under when it's present, you aren't neutral, just oppressed or in fear or pragmatic.
A neutral guy thinks some laws are necessary. Just not all of them. Chaotic means "I'm responsible for my own actions, nobody needs to tell me what to do, because my choices are my own."

Zanos

2017-07-21, 11:00 AM

Not if convenient just means "avoiding problems I don't want to deal with".
Nope, this is wrong. If you never run into problems caused by your viewpoint, it's either never challenged or not important enough to you for you to actually be that alignment. You aren't Lawful if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem, just the same as you aren't Chaotic if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem.

If you are Chaotic in the absence of law, but knuckle under when it's present, you aren't neutral, just oppressed or in fear or pragmatic.
Chaotic people don't "knuckle under" when they're oppressed, they fight back.

A neutral guy thinks some laws are necessary. Just not all of them. Chaotic means "I'm responsible for my own actions, nobody needs to tell me what to do, because my choices are my own."
It also means, and I quote:

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

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Lawful people to some degree, feel compelled to obey. Chaotic people, to some degree, feel compelled to rebel. Being neutral means you feel neither beholden to or inherently against authority. Disrespect for authority is inherent to a Chaotic viewpoint.

Elkad

2017-07-21, 11:34 AM

Nope, this is wrong. If you never run into problems caused by your viewpoint, it's either never challenged or not important enough to you for you to actually be that alignment. You aren't Lawful if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem, just the same as you aren't Chaotic if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem.

Chaotic people don't "knuckle under" when they're oppressed, they fight back.

It also means, and I quote:

Lawful people to some degree, feel compelled to obey. Chaotic people, to some degree, feel compelled to rebel. Being neutral means you feel neither beholden to or inherently against authority. Disrespect for authority is inherent to a Chaotic viewpoint.

Those are levels of your commitment. If it's a gross enough violation, you take action (legal or extra-legal. Activism and Vigilantism count, but so does just quietly disobeying, or even moving somewhere that law doesn't apply). But you can make a personal choice for convenience to temporarily obey a law you disagree with.

One example. Posting for a friend here of course. He believes in the inalienable right to bear arms. So much so that for many years he arms himself daily in violation of local law, while refusing to jump through the legal hoops to get a piece of paper saying he was allowed to do so, because he believes even the permitting process interferes with his rights. He didn't talk about it. He didn't flaunt it. He just did it. Accepting the consequences of his actions if he was caught. But that means he also very carefully obeys some other laws he also disagrees with (like possession of recreational pharmaceuticals), because getting searched for some other offense might lead to discovery of this more-serious crime.
He also donated heavily (and anonymously, don't need lawmakers peeking at him) to a group that was working within the law to get it repealed. Which succeeded eventually.
Now he can arm himself legally, with no-one the wiser. And now he can choose to break "lesser" laws he disagrees with, because the threat of punishment for the greater law has been solved.

Zanos

2017-07-21, 11:40 AM

Those are levels of your commitment. If it's a gross enough violation, you take action (legal or extra-legal. Activism and Vigilantism count, but so does just quietly disobeying, or even moving somewhere that law doesn't apply). But you can make a personal choice for convenience to temporarily obey a law you disagree with.

One example. Posting for a friend here of course. He believes in the inalienable right to bear arms. So much so that for many years he arms himself daily in violation of local law, while refusing to jump through the legal hoops to get a piece of paper saying he was allowed to do so, because he believes even the permitting process interferes with his rights. He didn't talk about it. He didn't flaunt it. He just did it. Accepting the consequences of his actions if he was caught. But that means he also very carefully obeys some other laws he also disagrees with (like possession of recreational pharmaceuticals), because getting searched for some other offense might lead to discovery of this more-serious crime.
He also donated heavily (and anonymously, don't need lawmakers peeking at him) to a group that was working within the law to get it repealed. Which succeeded eventually.
Now he can arm himself legally, with no-one the wiser. And now he can choose to break "lesser" laws he disagrees with, because the threat of punishment for the greater law has been solved.
So he worked within a legal process to change the law to suit his beliefs while also disobeying it to the degree that he thought he could get away with?

Sounds perfectly neutral to me. Lawful people have an inherent bias towards law because of what it is. Chaotic people have an inherent bias against law because of what it is. If you evaluate every single law on a case by case basis, that's neutrality.

Darth Ultron

2017-07-21, 11:58 AM

I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. If you act Chaotic when it's convenient and act Lawful when that's convenient, you're neutral.

Except your not taking into account that most people don't have a choice. The vast majority of people are stuck in their alignment and can't change.

Nope, this is wrong. If you never run into problems caused by your viewpoint, it's either never challenged or not important enough to you for you to actually be that alignment. You aren't Lawful if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem, just the same as you aren't Chaotic if you toss it away the second it causes you a problem.

If your viewpoint is correct for you, then you don't need to ''challenge'' it. Some people are comfortable with themselves and what the choose to be. And if your 100% invested, your not going to have many problems.

Lawful people to some degree, feel compelled to obey. Chaotic people, to some degree, feel compelled to rebel. Being neutral means you feel neither beholden to or inherently against authority. Disrespect for authority is inherent to a Chaotic viewpoint.

Maybe more like Lawful people feel compelled to do as they are told. Chaotic people feel compelled to do what they want. To say disrespect is chaotic is a bit too much: a lawful good person might have a bad boss/higher authority and show them disrespect, but that is not a chaotic act.

Like the following the Speed Limit above:

Lawful: Will just about all ways follow the posted speed limit, they have total faith in the authorities that made the speed limit and think they are ''right and smart'' and think the world is a better place is everyone follows the rules. Even at times when no one is around for miles and they could get away with it ''clean''. Even if they were say, late to work, they would still go the speed limit. Only a real emergency would get them to speed.

Neutral: Will generally go the speed limit, might think some of the people in charge know what they are doing some of the time, but use a bit more logic and common sense to apply the reasons they follow the speed limit. They would agree everyone should drive slower in residential areas, but can drive fast away from such areas. If in a hurry for any reason they have no problem speeding

Chaotic: Will generally go the speed limit, but only because of the fear of being caught. Once they feel safe from being caught, they speed. They can care lees what someone says the speed limit is, and drive at whatever speed they feel like.

You can see this on any three lane high way.

Right lane-Lawful folks doing the speed limit.
Middle lane-Neural folks doing the speed limit or maybe a couple miles over.
Left lane-Chaotic folks driving at least 80 to 90 and zipping past.

Florian

2017-07-21, 11:59 AM

So he worked within a legal process to change the law to suit his beliefs while also disobeying it to the degree that he thought he could get away with?

Sounds perfectly neutral to me.

Hah! No! That´s the kind of nearly automatic contradiction I mentioned earlier.

Zanos

2017-07-21, 12:29 PM

Except your not taking into account that most people don't have a choice. The vast majority of people are stuck in their alignment and can't change.
How do they not have a choice?

If your viewpoint is correct for you, then you don't need to ''challenge'' it. Some people are comfortable with themselves and what the choose to be. And if your 100% invested, your not going to have many problems.
This is about alignment. Alignment is determined by your past actions. If you've never acted in a Chaotic or Lawful manner, you aren't Lawful or Chaotic.

Maybe more like Lawful people feel compelled to do as they are told. Chaotic people feel compelled to do what they want. To say disrespect is chaotic is a bit too much: a lawful good person might have a bad boss/higher authority and show them disrespect, but that is not a chaotic act.
The book says that one of the negative aspects of Chaos is disrespect for legitimate authorities.

Also, Lawful people don't necessarily feel compelled to do what they are told unless the orders come from what they perceive to be legitimate authority. They follow the chain of command and orders, not the instructions of anyone.

Neutral: Will generally go the speed limit, might think some of the people in charge know what they are doing some of the time, but use a bit more logic and common sense to apply the reasons they follow the speed limit. They would agree everyone should drive slower in residential areas, but can drive fast away from such areas. If in a hurry for any reason they have no problem speeding

Chaotic: Will generally go the speed limit, but only because of the fear of being caught. Once they feel safe from being caught, they speed. They can care lees what someone says the speed limit is, and drive at whatever speed they feel like.
Your descriptions here aren't meaningfully different. A Chaotic person would speed even at risk to themselves, just as a truly Lawful person will not speed even at risk to themselves.

I don't understand what's difficult about this, honestly. Alignments are opposites. If your interpretation of Law is such that Lawful people sometimes do not evaluate the true worth of the laws they follow, Chaos must sometimes not really evaluate the value of the laws they oppose. Chaos can be just as irrational as Law.

Hah! No! That´s the kind of nearly automatic contradiction I mentioned earlier.
There are no contradictions here, only the beige of neutrality.

eldskald

2017-07-21, 01:19 PM

This is about alignment. Alignment is determined by your past actions. If you've never acted in a Chaotic or Lawful manner, you aren't Lawful or Chaotic.

Alignment isn't completely determined by your past actions, it's mostly determined by your... Well... Alignment. There is this idea, and you either align with it or you don't. If you act accordingly or not, it only shows how serious you are or how true you are to your ideas. Or sometimes, other things might change your actions. For example, it's easier to be chaotic or lawful when there are people telling you what to do. You just rebel and rise against, or agrees and abides to it. But when no one cares about what you do or how you do it, how can you say you are acting chaotic or orderly? You just do what you do.

Zanos

2017-07-21, 01:21 PM

Alignment isn't completely determined by your past actions, it's mostly determined by your... Well... Alignment. There is this idea, and you either align with it or you don't. If you act accordingly or not, it only shows how serious you are or how true you are to your ideas. Or sometimes, other things might change your actions. For example, it's easier to be chaotic or lawful when there are people telling you what to do. You just rebel and rise against, or agrees and abides to it. But when no one cares about what you do or how you do it, how can you say you are acting chaotic or orderly? You just do what you do.
People aren't born with an alignment, and actions, not thought, determine what your alignment is. The game is extremely clear regarding this.

hamishspence

2017-07-21, 01:24 PM

ExLibrisMortis

2017-07-21, 01:46 PM

hamishspence

2017-07-21, 02:07 PM

I think Zanos has the right of it here. Meaningful alignment is sometimes detrimental to your personal well-being. For example, a demon will take wounds to hurt a [good] creature, as will a devil, because [evil] despises [good]. Demon and devil society reward the hurting of [good], of course, but even so, an unobserved demon—even an outcast demon—will still hurt a [good] creature because of their strong belief that that is intrinsically a good thing to do (and that shows you why the brackets are necessary :smalltongue:).

Demons and devils are vastly more interested in hurting one another than they are in hurting celestials - hence the whole "Blood War" thing.

But the same is not true of eladrins and archons - they don't despise one other the way demons despise devils.

Even slaadi and modrons - exemplars of chaos and law - aren't that interested in going after one another.

For that matter, yugoloths - exemplars of Neutral Evil - have minimal interest in guardinals - exemplars of Neutral Good.

Yugoloths mostly hire themselves out to demons and devils, fighting the Blood War.

eldskald

2017-07-21, 02:19 PM

People aren't born with an alignment, and actions, not thought, determine what your alignment is. The game is extremely clear regarding this.

The game is also contradictory on that. For example, predator animals live their whole lives killing other animals to eat. That's basically all their actions in their whole lives. Killing is evil, yet they are neutral. The trick is on why they kill other animals, and that's not to torture or for fun, that's so they can eat and stay alive. So the action is not important, what is important are the intentions and the thought behind the action. That means that thought, beliefs and personality is what really matters, not the actions themselves.

For example, if the king in Robin Hood ordered all of the rich people to share all their possessions with the poor, would Robin Hood stand against his rule? Sometimes, the authorities insterests and actions might align with the interests and actions of a chaotic. Does that makes them lawful? Or does it makes the authorities chaotic instead?

hamishspence

2017-07-21, 02:23 PM

I think Zanos has the right of it here. Meaningful alignment is sometimes detrimental to your personal well-being.

That's mostly for Good. "Self-sacrificing behaviour" is far more associated with Good than with any other alignment. Evil doesn't do "self-sacrifice for The Greater Cause of Evil" as a rule.

Chaotic Neutral generally wouldn't be fanatical about "the greater Chaos" either:

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

A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer).

eldskald

2017-07-21, 02:32 PM

Chaotic Neutral generally wouldn't be fanatical about "the greater Chaos" either:

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

A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer).

If we think about it, breaking a rule just for the sake of breaking it is actually a rule. Chaotic people are not supposed to break rules, it's just that they don't care if its against the rules of within them to do what they do. They do what they want, period. Breaking the rules just for the lulz is not chaotic neutral, that's chaotic stupid.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid

Zanos

2017-07-21, 02:44 PM

Yeah, and Chaotic people can be just as stupid as Lawful people.

Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

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

tomandtish

2017-07-21, 02:47 PM

The game is also contradictory on that. For example, predator animals live their whole lives killing other animals to eat. That's basically all their actions in their whole lives. Killing is evil, yet they are neutral. The trick is on why they kill other animals, and that's not to torture or for fun, that's so they can eat and stay alive. So the action is not important, what is important are the intentions and the thought behind the action. That means that thought, beliefs and personality is what really matters, not the actions themselves.

Game isn't really contradictory, as Animals aren't really a good example. They lack the intelligence for moral thought.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

When they talk about components of alignment, it's clear that it is in the context of those capable of making such a choice in the first place.

hamishspence

2017-07-21, 02:52 PM

Yeah, and Chaotic people can be just as stupid as Lawful people.

But "lacking in self-preservation" is pushing it beyond what's necessary.

Same applies to Evil for that matter

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil

Being "so evil as to go against basic self-preservation" makes little sense - at least as a requirement.

eldskald

2017-07-21, 03:08 PM

Game isn't really contradictory, as Animals aren't really a good example. They lack the intelligence for moral thought.

And that's exactly what I meant. I meant that the action wasn't important, but the thought behind it. That's why animals kill and aren't evil. And that's why also abiding to or rising against doesn't exactly mean order or chaos.

The game contradicts itself when it says that the actions are what define alignment.

Zanos

2017-07-21, 03:21 PM

But "lacking in self-preservation" is pushing it beyond what's necessary.
It's not a lack of self preservation, it's just getting yourself into trouble. A CN character doesn't need to start a fight with some surly guards to get them to leave him alone, but he probably will anyway. It's not necessarily the most pragmatic solution to the problem.

Also, Lawful characters are just as capable of evaluating whether or not a law is valuable, which is another mischaracterization in this thread. They'll just generally work within a system if they see something isn't working out.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-07-21, 04:26 PM

Evil doesn't do "self-sacrifice for The Greater Cause of Evil" as a rule.
Except that devils do that all the time. Demons too, when they're not fighting one another. And in general, [evil] beings do go above and beyond the small things to cause evil and harm good. It'd be a hell of a lot easier to be [evil] in Baator and stay there, but nooo, we need to go to the Material Plane to corrupt some mortals, we need to go win the Blood War to unite the evulz, we need to go storm the [good] planes and rule the multiverse, we need to cross the street to kick that puppy, and all that even if it may get us killed. It's not what we like to call self-sacrificing, because that has a positive sound to it, but it's the same principle: you take your precious time and energy, and go do things not affecting your own survival in a positive sense, because you want to achieve a long-term goal you may not even live to see (devils may be immortal, but they do get destroyed, or worse, demoted).

Also, any type of suicide attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack) can be used by [evil] as well as good.

RedMage125

2017-07-21, 08:47 PM

Florian

2017-07-22, 02:45 AM

Except when it comes to chromatic dragons, natural lycanthropes, people hit with Helms of Opposite Alignment, people hit with Morality Undone spells, and so on.

"Alignment is heavily connected to thoughts/personality - and not wholly dependent on actions" has quite a bit of support backing it.

I think it helps to see Alignments as nine competing "cosmic truths" of how a "proper" multiverse should function.

Most sentient being are assumed to have some form of free will and develop a personality based on their thoughts and actions. Thus, they will automatically align with one of those truths, or switch what they´re aligned with once their personality changes. That is also part of "nurture".

Now D&D is interesting in that we have a lot of creatures where we have to assume that their very nature prevents them from having an actual free will, in the sense that "nurture" could overcome "nature" in any way. At least part of their personality is hard-coded and unable to change.

That also helps explain something. A lot of powers and abilities are expressions of the truth an alignments represents. The concept of "power through intense discipline" is a common part of the L-axis, while "power through nature" is not supported by the 4 "far corner" alignments, while the "powers of a paladin" is unique to LG. Therefore, should one alignment ever cease to exist, everything connected to it would also come to an end.

Maybe that also explains the intense hatred a lot of people seem to exhibit towards the alignment system: They want to play something that requires a different personality or set of core values than they themselves have, not seeing that as a challenge but as a restriction to their personal fun.

Demons and devils are vastly more interested in hurting one another than they are in hurting celestials - hence the whole "Blood War" thing.

But the same is not true of eladrins and archons - they don't despise one other the way demons despise devils.

Even slaadi and modrons - exemplars of chaos and law - aren't that interested in going after one another.

For that matter, yugoloths - exemplars of Neutral Evil - have minimal interest in guardinals - exemplars of Neutral Good.

Yugoloths mostly hire themselves out to demons and devils, fighting the Blood War.

The Blood War and the execution of the concept of the major aligned outsider races is so bad, it hurts.

First, the whole over-focus on the Good-Evil-conflict. Second, the Upper Planes being all buddies and respecting each other, while, say, LG is as connected or removed to CG than it is the LE.
At the same time, the Law-Chaos-axis was never really flashed-out and doesn´t play a real role in the big picture. Last, the Blood War itself. That´s so..... arrrgh!

Darth Ultron

2017-07-22, 06:39 AM

People aren't born with an alignment, and actions, not thought, determine what your alignment is. The game is extremely clear regarding this.

Well, you can dance around with the words, but a great many people are ''born a way''. Some people just are X. People are not born as blank slates.

And if you have ever had kids you will have seen it.

The ''cool idea'' that everyone just one day ''decides'' what alignment they will be or what kind of person they will be is a bit silly. Like there is a magic age where you can decide this.

A person can partially choose their actions, but they must also follow what they were born with (how they were raised/taught can be tossed out no problem). And some people do fight the nature they were born with every day....but most follow it.

Just take something like the Good act of self-sacrifice. Go read any of the hundred or so biographies of someone with this alignment trait. You will note a hundred backstories. Sure, some are the expected ''they were taught self-sacrifice''....but only some of them. For the rest it just ''came out of no where'' like they were born with it.

Florian

2017-07-22, 07:13 AM

Like there is a magic age where you can decide this.

In a sense, there is.

We can actually count ourselves to be lucky in that we are able to study such topics as philosophy, ethics and sociology, which gives us the opportunity to reflect about the basic nature of the universe and make the active decision to try and change ourselves.
We´re also free to have open discussion about the difference of what is necessary, what is wanted and how the ideal state could look like, then contrast that to the opinions of others.

eldskald

2017-07-22, 08:00 AM

In a sense, there is.

We can actually count ourselves to be lucky in that we are able to study such topics as philosophy, ethics and sociology, which gives us the opportunity to reflect about the basic nature of the universe and make the active decision to try and change ourselves.

Maybe there is a magic age for you and some other people. For others, this magic age is not when they can choose what they're gonna be, but when they accept what they are. Attempts to change just fail and outright hurt sometimes.

Florian

2017-07-22, 08:25 AM

Maybe there is a magic age for you and some other people. For others, this magic age is not when they can choose what they're gonna be, but when they accept what they are. Attempts to change just fail and outright hurt sometimes.

I´ve got the feeling that you mix things, mainly capacity and opportunity.

eldskald

2017-07-22, 08:43 AM

I´ve got the feeling that you mix things, mainly capacity and opportunity.

Definetely not. I get that if you never learn philosophy or no one shows you the other possibilities that you possess, you'll never even try to change and see if you are capable of such. I also get that if you do learn about the other ways, that does not mean you are capable of changing. But I also get that changing and deciding what to become is NOT the best way to grow up. Accepting what you are is as good as deciding what you are. Heck, accepting what you are can even count as deciding to stay true, right? That didn't stood clear in my first post, but that's what I tried to communicate: Acceptance is as good as changing, and to some people with strong personality, acceptance is better than changing. It might even cause change, ironically.

Kantaki

2017-07-22, 09:39 AM

I think it helps to see Alignments as nine competing "cosmic truths" of how a "proper" multiverse should function.

Most sentient being are assumed to have some form of free will and develop a personality based on their thoughts and actions. Thus, they will automatically align with one of those truths, or switch what they´re aligned with once their personality changes. That is also part of "nurture".

Now D&D is interesting in that we have a lot of creatures where we have to assume that their very nature prevents them from having an actual free will, in the sense that "nurture" could overcome "nature" in any way. At least part of their personality is hard-coded and unable to change.

That also helps explain something. A lot of powers and abilities are expressions of the truth an alignments represents. The concept of "power through intense discipline" is a common part of the L-axis, while "power through nature" is not supported by the 4 "far corner" alignments, while the "powers of a paladin" is unique to LG. Therefore, should one alignment ever cease to exist, everything connected to it would also come to an end.

Maybe that also explains the intense hatred a lot of people seem to exhibit towards the alignment system: They want to play something that requires a different personality or set of core values than they themselves have, not seeing that as a challenge but as a restriction to their personal fun.

The Blood War and the execution of the concept of the major aligned outsider races is so bad, it hurts.

First, the whole over-focus on the Good-Evil-conflict. Second, the Upper Planes being all buddies and respecting each other, while, say, LG is as connected or removed to CG than it is the LE.
At the same time, the Law-Chaos-axis was never really flashed-out and doesn´t play a real role in the big picture. Last, the Blood War itself. That´s so..... arrrgh!

Actually that makes perfect sense to me.
Good is all about respect and cooperation and dignity of others and stuff like that.
So accepting other viewpoints and methods and cooperating if necessary- especially if (part of) their goals align -is relatively easy for those guys.
Maybe those guys on the other side put a bit to much emphasis on order/freedom, but so what?The important part is that they too want to help others. So let's put our differences aside and cooperate. Maybe invite some NG guys to mediate if necessary.

Evil on the other hand?
For them others are there to be subjugated and exploited. Even if you ally with someone it's to give you an advantage to their detriment.
Those with different philosophies are at best a resource to oppress and exploit and at worst a threat that must be eradicated.
Even more so if they would do the same.
So to evil folks other evil guys are a more immediate threat than the good guys.
Can't storm the Gates of Heaven if the Hordes of the Abyss/the Legions of Hell could use the opportunity to attack you from behind.
And NE? They are too busy profiting from/manipulating the whole mess to help.

Disclaimer: I'm talking about the embodiments of the alignments there.
Mortals are a different can of fish.
They are more variable- both from individual to individual and within a specific individual.
I mean just because a Slaad might feel the compulsive need to try to pee into the face of every Inevitable it meets a chaotic-aligned mortal doesn't have to feel the same way about cops.:smallamused:
I know I don't. And I don't think it makes me less chaotic.:smalltongue:

Florian

2017-07-22, 11:19 AM

Kantaki

2017-07-22, 12:47 PM

@Kantaki:

Amusingly, you fall pray to the exact thing that I criticized. I don´t think you´ve noticed it, but you´re taking the NG stance for your argument, discounting that there´re others, that will lead to different results.

Let me try to show you:

LG
LN, NG << Something in common, nothing antagonistic.
TN << Nothing in common, nothing antagonistic
LE, CG << Something in common, something antagonistic
NE, CN << nothing in common, something antagonistic
CE << total opposite

NG
LG, LN, TN, CN, CG << something in common, nothing antagonistic
NE << Something in common, something antagonistic
LE, CE << total opposite

I call this out because you´ve apparently already "weighted" the parts that make up an alignment and use an argument that gives the "G" part a higher value than the "L" or "C" part, which are actually incompatible, unless you´re looking at them from an "N" stance.

I just think that for the forces of Good the mutual goal is more important than the approach.
Sure, the law-crowd might prefer a more orderly world while the chaos guys want a world with more freedom, but that's long-term goals.
In the short to mid-term spreading good is a goal they can unite behind.
Especially if- as I already admitted might even be necessary - Neutral Good mediates between them.*

And again, that's the cosmic forces. Mortals are far less bound by their alignment.
Lawful can befriend chaotic, chaotic can respect representatives of the law for risking their hides for what they believe in.

*Evil on the other hand I don't really see cooperating across the Law/Chaos-axis. Hel, I can barely see actual cooperation on the same point of the axis. (Again cosmic scale. Mortal evil can found orphanages out of genuine kindness and stay evil.)

Florian

2017-07-22, 12:55 PM

I just think that for the forces of Good the mutual goal is more important than the approach.

Yes, and exactly that _is_ the NG stance. That doesn´t make it true.

Kantaki

2017-07-22, 01:22 PM

Yes, and exactly that _is_ the NG stance. That doesn´t make it true.

Doesn't make it false either.
Unless you want to tell me a LG outsider would attack a CG one that's protecting a village from demons/a natural disaster/whatever for failing to fill out the right documents.
Or for doing so in the reverse case.
No, they save the innocents first and then, when they have some free-time from promoting the cause of good, they duke it out.
Because the G/E-axis is about what you do and the L/C one about how you do it.
And- short-term at least -one is more important than the other.

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Besides, have you seen my signature? Obviously I won't argue from a lawful point of view.:smallamused::smalltongue:

Darth Ultron

2017-07-22, 02:35 PM

In a sense, there is.

But are you saying a person does not ''decide'' what they want to be until after collage? So like what, 25? And what about people that don't go on to school? Do they get to decide at 18?

Ideas and all the other stuff have little effect on the ''born that way'' people.

But sure, not everyone is ''born'' a way. And some people change their minds and over come their natural ways. And a lot of people just follow whatever is popular and cool (or counter culture).

Still though, a person say ''born kind who does not want to hurt or kill people ever, even in the most extreme cases'' will not suddenly change who they are after going to school. Same way a violent person will be violent, a cheater will cheat and so on.....it is their nature.

eldskald

2017-07-22, 07:14 PM

I just think that for the forces of Good the mutual goal is more important than the approach.
Sure, the law-crowd might prefer a more orderly world while the chaos guys want a world with more freedom, but that's long-term goals.
In the short to mid-term spreading good is a goal they can unite behind.
Especially if- as I already admitted might even be necessary - Neutral Good mediates between them.*

And again, that's the cosmic forces. Mortals are far less bound by their alignment.
Lawful can befriend chaotic, chaotic can respect representatives of the law for risking their hides for what they believe in.

*Evil on the other hand I don't really see cooperating across the Law/Chaos-axis. Hel, I can barely see actual cooperation on the same point of the axis. (Again cosmic scale. Mortal evil can found orphanages out of genuine kindness and stay evil.)

Yeah, it all makes sense and is cool and right, but having the relationships between the planes being assymetrical is bad. I believe that's what Florian was trying to say. If good really opposes evil and law really opposes chaos, then the relationship between devils and demons should be alike the relationship between archons and eladrins. I get that the definitions of alignments gives reasons to enforce this assymetry, but that just makes matters worse if you think about it!

OldTrees1

2017-07-22, 07:24 PM

Yeah, it all makes sense and is cool and right, but having the relationships between the planes being assymetrical is bad. I believe that's what Florian was trying to say. If good really opposes evil and law really opposes chaos, then the relationship between devils and demons should be alike the relationship between archons and eladrins. I get that the definitions of alignments gives reasons to enforce this assymetry, but that just makes matters worse if you think about it!

Alternate theory:
The relationships between the planes are asymmetrical because it is more likely for them to coincidentally be asymmetrical than for them to be coincidentally symmetrical. The Aboleths have existed before this rendition of the universe and they might have seen another coincidental relationship asymmetry. Perhaps the previous reality was heavily dominated by a Lawful alliance and a CG vs CE war.

eldskald

2017-07-22, 07:46 PM

Florian

2017-07-23, 03:46 AM

Alternate theory:
The relationships between the planes are asymmetrical because it is more likely for them to coincidentally be asymmetrical than for them to be coincidentally symmetrical. The Aboleths have existed before this rendition of the universe and they might have seen another coincidental relationship asymmetry. Perhaps the previous reality was heavily dominated by a Lawful alliance and a CG vs CE war.

The main reason I pointed out how important it is to tackle the topic of RL sensibilities first is to help understand how the original (and subsequent) authors came up with the original idea, but botched the execution of it by apparently shying away from creating something that is anathema to their personal values.

There´s no need to come up with some in-game plausibility when it is sufficient to accept that intention and result don´t mesh because of a certain influence and lack of awareness of own bias.

That´s probably why instead of an even circle, what we get is an stretched elipse with uneven placement based on bias. Basic 4E alignment actually brought this to a point by flattening it into a line, with LG as "best", over G, then N, down to E with CE as "worst".

I bet if we were to rework the Great Wheel from scratch and could actually find 9 people that each strongly identify with one alignment and have them do the write-up of each, we would get very different results that are far more symmetrical.

Yeah, it all makes sense and is cool and right, but having the relationships between the planes being assymetrical is bad. I believe that's what Florian was trying to say. If good really opposes evil and law really opposes chaos, then the relationship between devils and demons should be alike the relationship between archons and eladrins. I get that the definitions of alignments gives reasons to enforce this assymetry, but that just makes matters worse if you think about it!

Exactly. It also de-values the importance of the N-component. Once we start to shift the ability to cooperate despite differences towards being attributed to G instead of N, then we get an asymmetrical situation.

@Darth Ultron:
Asking for a legal age for insight and wisdom, coming from a self-professor chaotic person?