Lawful vs Chaos OR Passion vs Logic [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : Lawful vs Chaos OR Passion vs Logic

Talamare

2017-12-07, 04:25 AM

LeonBH

2017-12-07, 04:31 AM

krugaan

2017-12-07, 04:48 AM

Way i've always seen is it Good - Evil is a focus on others v. self.

Law and Chaos has to do with ... well, which method benefits your focus more. Order and control, or individuality and intuition.

Talamare

2017-12-07, 05:00 AM

I think that you can be passionate about following the law, and you can be logical about following the law. You can also be passionate about applying logic, and you can find logic in chaos (see: Chaos Theory).

I may not have explained it clearly, but the point was to replace Lawful vs Chaos with Passion vs Logic

So yea, You can be Passionate or Logical about following the Law or imposing the Law

You can also be Passionate and Logical about equally, which is what Neutral is for (^_^)

Unoriginal

2017-12-07, 05:34 AM

Personally, I disagree, because one can just as well argue "being intentionally not logical is a broken concept".

Also, with the descriptions you give: "a Passionate person can have any ideals, but they do so with following their gut. They do what they feel is right, what needs to be done. They follow their heart on matters.
While a Logical person attempts to calculate the situation in order to achieve their goals.", you're basically just changing the name of the alignment without changing the alignments.

Here is what 5e says about lawful and chaotic alignments:

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.

Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are Lawful evil.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

The problem of chaotic stupid isn't the chaos, it's the stupidity.

I might have agreed with you it was a good idea if you were talking about 3.X alignments, but 5e has already dealt with the question enough that it's a non-issue.

Asmotherion

2017-12-07, 06:16 AM

After many alignment discussions I have started to feel that Lawful vs Chaos doesn't work.

Intentionally being Chaotic is inherently a broken concept, that is extremely difficult to perform. Which is why we often end up with Chaotic Stupid characters.

A Chaotic person can sometimes be perceived as someone who intentionally goes against the Law.
or Someone who lives on whims. Neither of which are very practical.

I came across Passion vs Logic the other day, and saw it as a better way to describe people.

A Passionate person can have any ideals, but they do so with following their gut. They do what they feel is right, what needs to be done. They follow their heart on matters.
While a Logical person attempts to calculate the situation in order to achieve their goals.

I'm not a great 'topic creator' to fully explain the idea.

However, what are your thoughts on using Passion vs Logic instead of Lawful vs Chaotic
I can see your arguement;

Law and Chaos are very broad concepts however with a lot of subcategories.

In a sence, you could more safelly call them "Order and Freedom".

Lawful Good (Orderly Good) See the order as a means to protect the people from people who abuse their freedom for evil reasons or for personal gain disreguarding they might hurt others indirectly in the progress.

Lawful Neutral (Orderly Neutral) Strongly believe in order as a foundation of civilisation and that it is what makes us diferent than animals.

Lawful Evil (Orderly Evil) Believe in the social ladder, and that order is the maens to not only climb in the social ladder, but also make those below stay there, as they want to take their place (or they perceive them as such) and those above fall, in order to take their place. That said, they respect those above them untill they can ensure they can take their place in a lawful way, as they see them as pillars of society that keeps the savages away.

Chaotic Good (Freedom Good) Strongly believes that order opreses his freedom to act as he wants individually. Believes that the law is flawed and has made mistakes, causing suffering to innocents. Wants to protect people from evil tyrants who abuse their laws for selfish reasons and cause people suffering.

Chaotic Neutral (Freedom Neutral) Strongly believes that order opreses his freedom to act as he wants individually. Does not want to have to answear to guards and millitia about where he went for a drink last night or were he bought that dagger. Want to be left alone to his buisnes which reguards himself and himself alone.

Chaotic Evil (Freedom Evil) Strongly believes that order opreses his freedom to act as he wants individually. Does not want to have to answear to guards and millitia about what he did last night. Wich usually involves stabbing people, and selling their organs in taverns, saying it's "quallity bacon". This one is a bad seed, who wants to do what he wants without answering to anyone, and if left unchecked, the world would never be the same.

IronMike

2017-12-07, 06:36 AM

I just answer a short version of Myers-Briggs in the guise of each of my characters to get their "alignment." :smallamused:

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-07, 06:55 AM

I actually dislike Passion vs Logic more, due to having a liking for passionately logical characters (not characters in between the two, but characters who are passionate about being logical).

Plus, Spock points out how weird seperating the two is in many situations, when he tells Kirk that it was stupid to accept promotion because he's not passionate about his new position. Sometimes the passionate decision is the logical one.

Plus, in many ways, being too far into either extreme leads to stupidity. While this is most obvious from the passion side (acting without thinking means you cannot actually know if this course of action is the best way to gain benefits), but it does exist on the logical side (over analysis can stop you from acting, especially when the fact that you act is more important).

Strangely, I think that the introduction of Good and Evil is the main problem with the Law-Chaos axis. It used to essentially be where you stood on a metaphysical level (kind of), did you agree with those who want an ordered world, or a world of potential.

Ironically I think one of the best Chaotic characters I've seen in fiction is Tsukasa from Dr Stone. He does legitimately believe that a more lawless society would be better, at least to a point, and can reason his position rather well, but it also shows that to the more Lawful main character the implications are not worthwhile.

Unoriginal

2017-12-07, 07:19 AM

Plus, Spock points out how weird seperating the two is in many situations, when he tells Kirk that it was stupid to accept promotion because he's not passionate about his new position. Sometimes the passionate decision is the logical one.

Err, there are many instances where the Vulcan way of logic is show to be imperfect or not actually different form the passion-including way, but in this instance Spock's argument wasn't "you're not passionate about your new job, you shouldn't have taken it" but more "you were the best at your old job, it's a waste to sacrifice it for a job you don't enjoy as much and where you are not as good"

Anonymouswizard

2017-12-07, 07:41 AM

Err, there are many instances where the Vulcan way of logic is show to be imperfect or not actually different form the passion-including way, but in this instance Spock's argument wasn't "you're not passionate about your new job, you shouldn't have taken it" but more "you were the best at your old job, it's a waste to sacrifice it for a job you don't enjoy as much and where you are not as good"

Yeah, but his passion for being a starship captain was a part of it (and makes a lot of logical sense, him not enjoying/being passionate for his new job lowers his performance). Vulcan logic is also relatively weird, bit the actually logical parts are relatively sound, they have problems with people skills (Vulcans are also another example of taking logic a bit too far compared to passion, note that the 'better ones' are not alogical, just more likely to accept that sometimes the 'emotional' response is the correct one).

Joe the Rat

2017-12-07, 09:16 AM

I'm reading Passion vs Logic as Romanticism vs. Enlightenment. Would you rather know, or feel?

Which works great for a personality, but is kinda crappy as a cosmological construct.

So my question is, what are YOU using alignment for? If it's a personality/motivation matrix, then passion, or enlightnement, or conscientiousness would totally be appropriate. If it's about framing the cosmos, it's going to be a very Romantic type of setting.

Order vs. Chaos, or Deterministic vs. Probabilistic is going to work better. Should the world be more organized, controlled, perfectly predictable (a system of government with consistent rules), or a world that is inherently chance driven, where "highly likely" is the best guarantee of an outcome (government by the individual rulings of each Judge, Council, or Master) or somewhere in between.

Unoriginal

2017-12-07, 09:44 AM

Yeah, but his passion for being a starship captain was a part of it (and makes a lot of logical sense, him not enjoying/being passionate for his new job lowers his performance). Vulcan logic is also relatively weird, bit the actually logical parts are relatively sound, they have problems with people skills (Vulcans are also another example of taking logic a bit too far compared to passion, note that the 'better ones' are not alogical, just more likely to accept that sometimes the 'emotional' response is the correct one).

Well, most Vulcans adopt the weird "pragmatic logic tempered by ethics while claiming to reject emotions (while not actually doing so entirely)" way because without extreme mental discipline a Vulcan is an incredibly violent and chaotic murder machine. And let's not get into the sex parts.

mer.c

2017-12-07, 09:47 AM

Lawful and Chaotic are IMO fine conceptually in 5e. The resources do a good enough job of fleshing out what those mean that (in my experience) they steer people away from lawful stupid/chaotic stupid and towards more nuanced, organic, coherent characters. Especially if you read alignment as descriptive (my character has X characteristics, so she is Y alignment) instead of prescriptive (my character has Y alignment, so she must do action Z).

IMO, the problem with Lawful and Chaotic is the words themselves. They're decent for encompassing a lot of the traits they're supposed to, but the noise they bring with drowns out a lot of the good work the materials do to steer people away from those frequent misinterpretations. I'm not sure what the best solution is. The concepts they embody are really disparate despite being pretty coherent, and I haven't found a single word that really sums them up. And Law and Chaos have deep roots in D&D.

As for Passion vs. Logic, I don't think that needs to factor into the alignment system. It's good if players have a sense of how passionate and how logical their characters are, but there are tons of characteristics of varying importance to most if not all characters, and plotting them on the alignment grid doesn't really add anything in my opinion.

LeonBH

2017-12-07, 10:37 AM

One weakness of Passion vs Logic is it implies that "logical" characters are intelligent. The classic Lawful Good Paladin would become a Logical and Good Paladin. Not only does it carry less zing to the name, it also implies the Paladin is good at deduction. Let's face it, Int is their dump stat.

Whereas the Chaotic Evil Demon becomes Passionate and Evil Demon, which brings to mind a Succubus.

It does describe Chaotic Good better though, as Passionate and Good. And it does more justice to Lawful Evil as Logical and Evil.

LudicSavant

2017-12-07, 10:48 AM

LeonBH

2017-12-07, 10:53 AM

2) A logical mind is directly inferior to an illogical one.

You have it the other way around. :)

LudicSavant

2017-12-07, 10:54 AM

You have it the other way around. :)

That was a rather egregious typo -_-

Corrected.

Tanarii

2017-12-07, 11:05 AM

I find looking at the PHB Ideals associated with the PHB backgrounds helps give insight to what the developers were thinking, or other than just the one sentence description given for the general (but not required) alignment behavior.

The first word is a useful summary, but it doesn't necessarily convey the entirety of what they're suggesting. So if you're gonna nitpick go look it up in its entirety first. :smallwink:

As such, the correct contrast is not Logic vs Passion. It is Logic vs Free Thinking (Hermit), or Logic vs No Limits (Sage).

Chaotic Ideals from PHB:
Change, Independence, Freedom, Creativity, Free Thinking, No Limits.

Lawful Ideals from PHB:
Tradition, Power*, Fairness, Honor, Community, Logic, Responsibility.

And of course the (Any) Ideals can work with either:
Aspiration, (Self-) Honesty**, Destiny, Self-Knowledge, Family, Glory, Self-improvement, Nation.

*this one is ususual, Power is usually Evil, but for the Acolyte it's Lawful

** Entertainer says Honesty, but it pretty clearly means self-honesty, be who you really are.

Requilac

2017-12-07, 03:03 PM

Talamere, I think you have an interesting concept set up, but in all honesty the system you have proposed will not stop alignment arguements. The logic vs. passion is just as vaguely define as the law vs. Chaos arguement. The conceptions of what is “logical” and what is “passionate” vary from person to person. Here is The new Oxford dictionary’s definition of the words

Logic: “reasoning conducted or assessed using strict principles of validity
Passion: “strong and barely controllable emotion”.

These are broad concepts that can be interpretered a variety of ways. For example, if asked one person what it means to be “logical” they might talk of a fair person who uses reasonable conclusions and careful thought to make the most beneficial possible solution. If I ask the same person what it means to be passionate they would say that someone like that is an unstable scum who would gladly hurt others to fulfill their own selfish desires.

Now what happens if ask the person next to them what it means to be logical? They may claim that logical is a title given to sinister, misguided and heartless people who are incapable of empathy to justify their own cruel actions. If they were asked what it means to be passionate they would say that passion is the belief that emotions and intuition lead one to make better moral decisions that lead to greater benefits to the world itself.

By replacing “law vs. chaos” with “logic vs. passion”, you are not stopping any arguements. You will still see intense disagreements with people against a philosophical topic which is not clearly defined. Some people on here have already debated over whether logic vs. passion is mutually exclusive or not. Your system does not solve the issue at hand, it simply redirects it to a slightly different topic.

In truth, I do not think there is any stopping alignment disputes. Morality and complex philosophies cannot be so easily grouped as a statistic, and that is precisely what alignment does. Subjects such as “good and evi”, “chaos and law” and “logic and passion” are not clearly defined and everyone will hold a different belief on them. If you dislike alignment debates at your table, than ignore alignment. 5e does not need it all accept for a very small amount of corner cases the DM can easily fix . Many tables including my own have ignored it and suffered no setback whatsoever. I am sorry to say this Talamere, your system is an interesting thought experiment but it will fail to solve your objective.

krugaan

2017-12-07, 03:09 PM

The problem with Passion vs Logic is
1) These things are not actually opposed. Indeed one could even say it requires a not insignificant degree of passion in order to train a logical mind. It is not something effortlessly achieved. Likewise, one could question the passion of anyone who can't take something seriously enough to make the effort to reason through it.

This is probably the biggest problem with it.

Law and Chaos is just a non-political way of saying conservative and liberal, anyway.

Nifft

2017-12-07, 03:11 PM

In previous games, I've framed Law as Collectivism, and on the other side Chaos as Individualism.

Neither is perfectly correct; both have valid points; neither is stupid or inferior to the other.

You can be good or evil independent of how you relate to organizations -- Collectivist Evil exists, and so does Individualist Evil -- there's quite a lot of both, unfortunately.

greenstone

2017-12-07, 03:36 PM

A Chaotic person can sometimes be perceived as someone who intentionally goes against the Law.
or Someone who lives on whims. Neither of which are very practical.

As another alternative, try Traditional versus Progressive.

A Lawful character says, "That's the way we've always done it, it was good enough for our fathers, so there's no need to change."

A Chaotic character says, "We did it that way 100 years ago because things were different 100 years ago, today we need a new way of doing things."

Also, check out "Are there "Real" Alignments?" (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html).

Theodoxus

2017-12-07, 03:44 PM

This is probably the biggest problem with it.

Law and Chaos is just a non-political way of saying conservative and liberal, anyway.

In previous games, I've framed Law as Collectivism, and on the other side Chaos as Individualism.

Neither is perfectly correct; both have valid points; neither is stupid or inferior to the other.

You can be good or evil independent of how you relate to organizations -- Collectivist Evil exists, and so does Individualist Evil -- there's quite a lot of both, unfortunately.

This sums up American politics until about 1979... and then poop happened.

But, to move away from that [scrubbable] offense, to the OPs point... I'm just glad alignment - however you want to describe it - is no longer a straitjacket enforced on specific classes (and to a lesser extent, races).

Play your character; let the table (and specifically DM) determine through your actions what your alignment is - if it even matters. Gone are the alignment based spells (detecting and affecting). Gone are alignment based planes... mechanically, alignment has no affect, ill or good, on your character.

I've yet to see anyone gain Inspiration for roleplaying their alignment correctly... though queue the "I have [story]" replies in 3, 2, 1...

greenstone

2017-12-07, 03:53 PM

Neither is perfectly correct; both have valid points; neither is stupid or inferior to the other.

That is a great point!

Neither Chaos nor Law are automatically the good guys. Or the bad guys.

Nifft

2017-12-07, 04:04 PM

That is a great point!

Neither Chaos nor Law are automatically the good guys. Or the bad guys.

Thanks!

IMHO a setting is more interesting when two good, intelligent people can disagree on fundamental values -- and neither of them is objectively dumb, nor objectively wrong.

Individualism vs. Collectivism isn't the only way to get this type of conflict -- but it's one that's worked well for me, and I think it's pretty harmonious with D&D as a whole -- you'd see individualist Elves who just don't get collectivist Dwarves, and so on.

Tanarii

2017-12-07, 04:10 PM

Individualism vs. Collectivism isn't the only way to get this type of conflict
Independence vs Responsibility / Community
Change / Creativity vs Tradition
Free Thinking vs Logic
Freedom vs Fairness

krugaan

2017-12-07, 04:16 PM

Naanomi

2017-12-07, 04:32 PM

Passion and Logic may work well as a dichotomy on the character sheet... but it doesn't hold the same weight on the cosmological scale, an Outer Planes built on a Passion VS Logic vector doesn't come together well. Law and Chaos are personal tendencies, but also powerful cosmic trends between Order and Disorder, Determinism and Free Will, The Larger Group and The Individual... passion and logic may have a place in all of that, but the don't adequately replace it

Tanarii

2017-12-07, 04:42 PM

Is it really necessary to find a different framework?

If anything, alignment is really only useful for the DM anyway, as a way to help determine npc motivations. The dm's got a lot more people to worry about.

Players should always have agency in their own actions and motivations.
Alignment is extremely useful to a player as a motivation, if they choose to use it. It gives them a single sentence motivation on overall (but not required) behavior for moral/social situations that integrates handily with other motivations.

I mean, they could get away without Alignment specifically. Alignment is also about Teams, Us vs Them historically, and has lots of other old edition baggage to boot. But general moral and/or social behavior is a great motivation in and of itself.

Edit: What's not so useful is when it stops being a players motivation, and instead becomes either a yardstick or a bludgeon other players or the DM use against the player. (Although it's still useful as ground rules for possible kinds of characters a campaign allows as long as it's properly defined.)

krugaan

2017-12-07, 04:49 PM

Alignment is extremely useful to a player as a motivation, if they choose to use it. It gives them a single sentence motivation on overall (but not required) behavior for moral/social situations that integrates handily with other motivations.

I mean, they could get away without Alignment specifically. Alignment is also about Teams, Us vs Them historically, and has lots of other old edition baggage to boot. But general moral and/or social behavior is a great motivation in and of itself.

Edit: What's not so useful is when it stops being a players motivation, and instead becomes either a yardstick or a bludgeon other players or the DM use against the player. (Although it's still useful as ground rules for possible kinds of characters a campaign allows as long as it's properly defined.)

Yeah, this is true, especially the bolded.

In 5e alignment is almost entirely pointless, which was the point, I guess.

Douche

2017-12-07, 04:50 PM

woo look at this another discussion about alignment

The PHB says alignment is your attitude towards society, not your proclivity to wear a penguin hat.

Chaotic people are libertarians, Lawful people are authoritarian. Simple as that.

You can still be LOLSORANDUM and be lawful, if your goal is to control things. You can have OCD and still be chaotic, if your goal is to bring people freedom/anarchy.

mgshamster

2017-12-07, 04:52 PM

I like it, especially when combined with changing the good-evil axis to Altruism-Egoism or Selflessness-Selfishness.

Tanarii

2017-12-07, 04:52 PM

In 5e alignment is almost entirely pointless, which was the point, I guess.
I take issue with this statement. :smalltongue:

In 5e, Alignment is the most useful and to the point of any edition's Alignment to date. Which was the point.

Nifft

2017-12-07, 04:54 PM

Independence vs Responsibility / Community
Change / Creativity vs Tradition
Free Thinking vs Logic
Freedom vs Fairness

Some of those are false dichotomies.

For example: Freedom vs. Fairness? There is no freedom without fairness. An unfair system is rigged to reduce someone's freedom.

Free Thinking vs. Logic? We owe all advances in math and a lot of physics to people who excel in both creativity and logic, at the same time, and who don't see any conflict between the two. The opposite of logic is fallacy -- and a fallacy is not a value system, it's just an idiot-ball.

I guess you were going for some sort of IQ / EQ dichotomy, but again there are plenty of people who excel in both, and sadly even more adept at neither.

It's like a comparison between Int vs. Wis -- they're separate things, different from each other, but they're not opposites.

krugaan

2017-12-07, 05:00 PM

I take issue with this statement. :smalltongue:

In 5e, Alignment is the most useful and to the point of any edition's Alignment to date. Which was the point.

At this point, my only rejoinder is that I take issue with YOUR MOTHER!

Or if your mother is sadly passed away, I apologize, and say instead that I take issue with YOUR FACE!

Tanarii

2017-12-07, 05:01 PM

Some of those are false dichotomies.
Apparently I needed to reiterate my comment about reading the full descriptions of the Ideals in the PHB. Or include them myself.

At this point, my only rejoinder is that I take issue with YOUR MOTHER!
Oh lord if we bring your mom jokes to this board it's all over for me. :smallbiggrin:

I Snrrrk'd. ;)

krugaan

2017-12-07, 05:07 PM

Oh lord if we bring your mom jokes to this board it's all over for me. :smallbiggrin:

I Snrrrk'd. ;)

Then I CLAIM THE VICTORY!

Dudewithknives

2017-12-07, 05:14 PM

I say throw alignments out the window and play people.

Pick a positive trait about your character and a negative trait about your character.

RP them, and maybe even earn inspiration based on sticking with it in the face of issues.

Ex. My rogue might have the positive objective or “Protective” and a negative one of “Untrusting”
So if we were in a situation where someone down an alley was getting mugged I would use my “Protective” aspect to go intervene and possible get us into things. However, if we were getting advice from an old wizard on how to handle a situation the DM could offer a point of inspiration if I used my untrusting adjective and did not trust the guy and thought he was lying.

Longman

2017-12-07, 05:43 PM

The real test of lawfulness is how you behave regarding the laws and conventions of society. In campaigns where there is more than one society, you can be lawful within one and chaotic within another. I might behave lawfully within my dwarf society but as for paying human taxes, forget it.

To me that has not much to do with Logic and Passion. I think the person's relationship with actual laws for the ordering of their own home society is always a good place to start a character concept, and alignment is still helpful for this reason.

Clistenes

2017-12-07, 05:46 PM

After many alignment discussions I have started to feel that Lawful vs Chaos doesn't work.

Intentionally being Chaotic is inherently a broken concept, that is extremely difficult to perform. Which is why we often end up with Chaotic Stupid characters.

A Chaotic person can sometimes be perceived as someone who intentionally goes against the Law.
or Someone who lives on whims. Neither of which are very practical.

I came across Passion vs Logic the other day, and saw it as a better way to describe people.

A Passionate person can have any ideals, but they do so with following their gut. They do what they feel is right, what needs to be done. They follow their heart on matters.
While a Logical person attempts to calculate the situation in order to achieve their goals.

I'm not a great 'topic creator' to fully explain the idea.

However, what are your thoughts on using Passion vs Logic instead of Lawful vs Chaotic

Mmmm... I think a person can be utterly chaotic without being passionate. Just think of somebody who is a lazy ass, and keeps their house a mess, dirt and full of trash, and can't even keep a job because they can't be bothered to arrive on time or do their work... They are chaotic, even if they lack all passion...

I see chaos more like 1.-A lack of discipline and unwillingness to follow rules and 2.-A somehow self-centered mindset: Nobody can tell them what to do, and even if they are acting selflessly, they have to do things their way and refuse to accept that somebody else can know better or is entitled to give them instruction...

Passion plays a part in that it is the thing that can make a chaotic person follow somebody else, obey them or follow their guidelines, and can make them focus on a task or mission. That's how I see classical CG elves: Their rulers are like rockstars, highly charismatic people with a devoted fanbase that would do anything for them... think of Galadriel, Yolande or Amlaruil Moonflower... that are the kind of people who can become rulers among elves.

Similarly, elves who undergo a mission do it because they are passionate about it.

But you can be chaotic without being passionate... you just won't do much, because, why bother putting the effort...?

EDIT: Anyways, I think the concepts of D&D's Law and Chaos aren't very realistic... think of a person with a very bad OCD... that person can be a mess, have little control over themselves, no discipline, unwillingness to follow other people's directions... and at the same time be utterly terrified of disorder, and have a crippingly strong need to have everything in place, strictly follow a carefully set schedule when doing anything... even if they would very much prefer to NOT do that...

Law and Chaos, like say Dexterity or Charisma, mix and combine together concepts that aren't equal into a single thing...

Afrodactyl

2017-12-07, 06:15 PM

I've always seen lawful as following a code of some sort. Whether that code be to follow the law of the land, or to kill everyone when you destroy a village so as not to leave orphans.

Chaotic I see as acting on instinct and impulse. You see what you want to achieve, so you go and get it, regardless of the route there or the wider scope of your immediate actions.

2D8HP

2017-12-07, 06:54 PM

I find looking at the PHB Ideals associated with the PHB backgrounds helps give insight to what the developers were thinking,.
@Tanarii is right, look to the Ideals in the PHB (and the Inspiration rules in the DMG) for how to use "Alignment" in 5e D&D

That out of the way, let me bloviate!

Logic vs. Passion?

As if!

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

To go back to the other D&D I've played, originally there were three classes; "Cleric", "Fighting-Men", and "Magic-User" (as in "wake up the user, it's time to cast the daily spell"). Clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but they could "turn" some undead (a bit like a 5e Paladin really).
The Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......".
(Ok this is the fun part the special powers which include......PSYCH! Back to the restrictions)
"Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magically items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is neccesary to maintain themselves, their men and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions , i.e.not tho some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princess of patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters"
Huh? What's lawful? What's chaotic? What's associate? And what is this charitable? I don't believe PC's know this word. :smallwink:
Well...helpfully there are some clues:
" Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".
OK Paladins are "continual seeking for good", "All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful" "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another (http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

And here's in 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

(Orcs can be Neutral as well as Chaos, as can Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes as well as Law, and Men may be any)

And "Law, Chaos, and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisionsl tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack."

Easy "detect alignment"!

Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock
Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my preference.

In 1976's
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax in The Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf) article added the "good and evil axis", but he made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

..that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax states:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."

So in general "Law" is the side of humanity, and "Chaos" is on the side of the supernatural in Anderson and early Moorcock, and very early D&D

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" doesn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)!

1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil", and it could be a coincidence but Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelorn wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment

Then I CLAIM THE VICTORY!

That made me laugh.

:biggrin:

Naanomi

2017-12-07, 06:55 PM

This isn’t a perfect model, but I usually use defining statements like...

I work <by myself/with others> for the benefit of <myself/everyone>

So... ‘Chaotic Good’ is “I work by myself for the benefit of everyone”; whereas ‘Lawful Evil’ is “I work with others for the benefit of myself”

It loses a lot of intricacy of alignment, but is a good starting point for new players unfamiliar with the concept

krugaan

2017-12-07, 07:07 PM

.
@Tanarii is right, look to the Ideals in the PHB (and the Inspiration rules in the DMG) for how to use "Alignment" in 5e D&D

That out of the way, let me bloviate!

/snip

I now dub thee DnD Lawnchair Professor.

Pretty interesting to see how all this evolved. There must be some graphic or timeline that shows the classes as DnD "matured". I always thought that thief was one of the original archetypes, but I can see why it wasn't included.

Daithi

2017-12-08, 03:48 AM

I can see Passionate = Chaos. Some people's lives are ruled by their passions, their gut, and what they feel is right and wrong (good/evil). This can appear completely chaotic when those passions conflict with one another and a character is making decisions that cannot be justified logically. A logical person trying to argue with one of these Chaos people is going to get nowhere fast. The Chaos person just "knows" what is right.

Whereas the Logical = Lawful, player needs to reevaluate what he believes when his beliefs conflict with one another. However, this is guided by the individual's sense of right and wrong and not by man-made laws or even laws from the word of the Gods. In fact, it is often man-made laws and God-made laws that conflict. The Chaos individual goes with what he feels is right for the situation, while the Logical individual needs to determine which of his conflicting laws/beliefs is right and why.

The problem for D&D is how would you apply this? For example, When would a Chaos/Lawful or Passionate/Logical person show a thief compassion? The answer for the Lawful character might be Never. The law is the law. The Logical, Passionate, and Chaos characters would probably show mercy if the thief was stealing medicine for her sick child, but they show mercy for different reasons. The Chaos person does so because they embrace chaos and not the law. The Passionate person does so because it's just the right thing to do. The Logical person does so because the need to care for a sick child out weighs the need to not take something you don't own. So, I don't see this as a system that will make playing D&D with law/chaos/good/evil or passion/chaos/right/wrong any easier, but I can see it as a useful guideline on roughly explaining where people fall in the general spectrum.

Talamare

2017-12-08, 06:37 AM

War_lord

2017-12-08, 08:16 AM

This is a terrible idea. Everyone (at least in the western cultural sphere) believes that their positions and beliefs are logical, because as a society we place "logical" behavior on a high pedestal and look down on openly emotion driven behavior. You're basically taking the Law-Chaos axis and giving it the same baggage as Good-Evil.

Talamare

2017-12-08, 08:55 AM

Tanarii

2017-12-08, 10:16 AM

Everyone (at least in the western cultural sphere) believes that their positions and beliefs are logical, because as a society we place "logical" behavior on a high pedestal and look down on openly emotion driven behavior.
As I like to say, "logical" nowadays just means "this thing I personally believe to be correct".

War_lord

2017-12-08, 11:31 AM

Are you speaking of Europe or America?

Because America is a Passion driven Society

Wew, that's a lot to unpack. First off, "Europe" covers a lot of ground. The cultural mores of Italy aren't that of Finland for example. Second, Europeans are not anymore "logical" then Americans. Humans are emotional creatures, that's universal. Depicting "Europe" as an ultra enlightened intellectual paradise is just as inaccurate as depicting it as a lawless wasteland.

As I like to say, "logical" nowadays just means "this thing I personally believe to be correct".

"Logical" has always meant "this thing I personally believe to be correct". Actually being logical is a skill that requires a lot of constant critical self-evaluation. Human nature isn't built for that, and the education diet of unquestionable facts most people are bombarded with in their teens does the rest. Telling students to take a rational approach to evaluating information they're given doesn't pass exams.

Talamare

2017-12-08, 11:44 AM

Wew, that's a lot to unpack. First off, "Europe" covers a lot of ground. The cultural mores of Italy aren't that of Finland for example. Second, Europeans are not anymore "logical" then Americans. Humans are emotional creatures, that's universal. Depicting "Europe" as an ultra enlightened intellectual paradise is just as inaccurate as depicting it as a lawless wasteland.

Fair, but are you arguing your own point?

This is a terrible idea. Everyone (at least in the western cultural sphere) believes that their positions and beliefs are logical, because as a society we place "logical" behavior on a high pedestal and look down on openly emotion driven behavior. You're basically taking the Law-Chaos axis and giving it the same baggage as Good-Evil.

In America the general population looks down on logical based behavior and rally behind passionate based behavior

War_lord

2017-12-08, 11:52 AM

In America the general population looks down on logical based behavior and rally behind passionate based behavior

How much time have you spent in European countries?

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-08, 11:59 AM

In America the general population looks down on logical based behavior and rally behind passionate based behavior Nope. As really bad generalizations go, this takes the cake.
Where do you live?
What profession are you in?

2D8HP

2017-12-08, 12:06 PM

...the general population looks down on logical based behavior and rally behind passionate based behavior.
I passionately disagree with such illogic!

If you were Canadian you would have apologized already!

*looks around for torch and pitchfork*

I just love "alignment" threads!

:amused:

Naanomi

2017-12-08, 12:18 PM

Anti-intellectualism is a part of American culture, but that doesn’t always necessarily translate to rejecting logic-based arguments in favor of passion-centered ones

krugaan

2017-12-08, 12:55 PM

America is divided more now than any time since the 1960's.

Lets quietly drop the politics and leave it out of this forum, eh?

Cause that's where it's headed right now.

Sigreid

2017-12-08, 01:11 PM

I disagree. My read on it is:

Lawful means you endeavor to live by the recognized rules of a society or organization believing that clear rules people follow means everyone knows what is expected of them and what can be expected of others. This is better for everyone.

Chaotic means you believe you cannot delegate responsibility for the your actions and their consequences to another, tradition or law. You are solely responsible for what you do, with full accountability.

Neutral means you see the value in conventions, traditions, expectations and laws but believe each person is responsible for their own actions. So generally you should follow expectations but that's not an excuse for a poor or wrong decision. The classic "If everyone jumped off a cliff" Scenario.

None of these are inherently based on logic or passion. Logic or emotion can be used as the foundation for any of the three.

War_lord

2017-12-08, 01:25 PM

America is divided more now than any time since the 1960's.

Lets quietly drop the politics and leave it out of this forum, eh?

Cause that's where it's headed right now.

No one has brought up politics except you.

"Humans tend to be more swayed by emotional arguments then purely logic based ones" is not a political statement. "Human tend to justify their own views as purely logical, even when those views obviously have a huge emotional element" is not a political statement.

Those observations come into play any time there's a disagreement between two people, even in the context of arguing in D&D.

Sigreid

2017-12-08, 01:28 PM

No one has brought up politics except you.

"Humans tend to be more swayed by emotional arguments then purely logic based ones" is not a political statement. "Human tend to justify their own views as logical, even when those views obviously have a huge emotional element" is not a political statement.

Those observations come into play any time there's a disagreement between two people, even in the context of arguing in D&D.

There were several posts that could be considered attacks on America and Americans that lead to that post.

War_lord

2017-12-08, 01:35 PM

Attack seems a bit strong. I feel a certain user was being a bit ivory tower and perhaps naive. But I don't think they were attacking anyone. More a case of the grass being greener on the other side (Of the Atlantic Ocean)

As an Irishman I can confirm Europe is not some strange academic utopia where all disagreements are handled via University debate club rules.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 01:42 PM

There were several posts that could be considered attacks on America and Americans that lead to that post.

Unsurprisingly, some of those appear to come from Americans, too.

Attack seems a bit strong. I feel a certain user was being a bit ivory tower and perhaps naive. But I don't think they were attacking anyone. More a case of the grass being greener on the other side (Of the Atlantic Ocean)

As an Irishman I can confirm Europe is not some strange academic utopia where all disagreements are handled via University debate club rules.

I had a good lol at this.

Not Irish, but as an American, I like imagining British arguments to be:

"You are making me very cross, sir, and I feel if this conversation continues we shall come to fisticuffs!"

"As I am desirous of this outcome, you poxy lad, I shall vaguely insinuate something about the morals of your mother!"

"You have crossed the line, sir! I demand that you defend your honor with your fists, right after I finish this delicious tea."

Sigreid

2017-12-08, 01:46 PM

Unsurprisingly, some of those appear to come from Americans, too.

Likely true but that doesn't change that it can be a provocation to those who feel differently. I'm certain we have a wide range of views on many topics on this board which means when we start talking real current world it invites ugly and unproductive bickering.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 01:48 PM

Likely true but that doesn't change that it can be a provocation to those who feel differently. I'm certain we have a wide range of views on many topics on this board which means when we start talking real current world it invites ugly and unproductive bickering.

Wait ... isn't that what we do anyway?

Sigreid

2017-12-08, 01:50 PM

Wait ... isn't that what we do anyway?

A lot of the time, but if it's about the game at least it's appropriate unproductive bickering. 😁

2D8HP

2017-12-08, 01:52 PM

Unsurprisingly, some of those appear to come from Americans, too..
Yeah, but those were largely Americans who've never been outside the U.S.A.

I however visited Ottawa, Canada in 1989 and can confirm that Canadians are beings of perfect rational logic and goodness...

...except maybe for the girl I was visiting.

And her friends.

And some other people that I talked to.

But other than them I'M SURE that the rest of that country were perfectly logical,.

PASSIONATELY SO.

:wink:

krugaan

2017-12-08, 02:03 PM

.
Yeah, but those were largely Americans who've never been outside the U.S.A.

I however visited Ottawa, Canada in 1989 and can confirm that Canadians are beings of perfect rational logic and goodness...

...except maybe for the girl I was visiting.

And her friends.

And some other people that I talked to.

But other than them I'M SURE that the rest of that country were perfectly logical,.

PASSIONATELY SO.

:wink:

Zingaroonie.

Those crazy Canadians! With their round bacon and French words and ... and ... universal health care!

Nifft

2017-12-08, 02:04 PM

.
Yeah, but those were largely Americans who've never been outside the U.S.A.

I however visited Ottawa, Canada in 1989 and can confirm that Canadians are beings of perfect rational logic and goodness...

...except maybe for the girl I was visiting.

And her friends.

And some other people that I talked to.

But other than them I'M SURE that the rest of that country were perfectly logical,.

PASSIONATELY SO.

:wink:

Ah, a story about a Canadian girlfriend.

I find this entirely trustworthy.

:wink:

2D8HP

2017-12-08, 02:21 PM

Ah, a story about a Canadian girlfriend.

I find this entirely trustworthy.

:wink:.
Well, it may have been 1988 not '89.

:redface:

GlenSmash!

2017-12-08, 02:42 PM

5e's approach is by far my favorite. Alignment is now two sentences that can be roleplayed for Inspiration.

It's quite elegant in it's simplicity.

This isn’t a perfect model, but I usually use defining statements like...

I work <by myself/with others> for the benefit of <myself/everyone>

So... ‘Chaotic Good’ is “I work by myself for the benefit of everyone”; whereas ‘Lawful Evil’ is “I work with others for the benefit of myself”

It loses a lot of intricacy of alignment, but is a good starting point for new players unfamiliar with the concept

It's an ok rule of thumb, But I could certainly see a group of Chaotic individuals coming together for a common purpose, they just might not believe that that common purpose should be forced onto others through violence.

Naanomi

2017-12-08, 03:48 PM

It's an ok rule of thumb, But I could certainly see a group of Chaotic individuals coming together for a common purpose, they just might not believe that that common purpose should be forced onto others through violence.
Yeah, it isn't a perfect match... but even still, most groups of Chaotic individuals are more like 'gatherings of likeminded individuals' than an 'organization' in the most obvious sense.

(Incidentally, I wasn't trying to be political earlier... the philosophical tradition of Anti-intellectualism has been influential throughout American history, most prominently in the 17th century but with echos to modern times as well)

krugaan

2017-12-08, 03:57 PM

Yeah, it isn't a perfect match... but even still, most groups of Chaotic individuals are more like 'gatherings of likeminded individuals' than an 'organization' in the most obvious sense.

(Incidentally, I wasn't trying to be political earlier... the philosophical tradition of Anti-intellectualism has been influential throughout American history, most prominently in the 17th century but with echos to modern times as well)

I think it's alright. Chaotic evil can still work together if they come out ahead and don't get trampled on.

It's pretty odd, since the language of science is English.

Is there a lot of American history in the 1600s? I'm not premodern history buff.

2D8HP

2017-12-08, 04:18 PM

(Incidentally, I wasn't trying to be political earlier...).
I'm not a Mod so my opinion doesn't count, but FWLIW your previous posts to this thread didn't argue who or what to vote for, so I imagine they're good. Sometimes if I worry whether my posts will be appropriate I'll PM the Mods.

Humans are "political animals, because nature, which does nothing in vain, has equipped them with speech, which enables them to communicate moral concepts such as justice which are formative of the household and city-state" (to sort of quote Aristotle, which I do because I'm STUNNINGLY HUMBLE), so maybe something can feel like politics without being politics?

Something to get PASSIONATE about.

What does LOGIC say?

...Is there a lot of American history in the 1600s? I'm not premodern history buff..
Despite my STUNNING HUMILITY :smallwink:, I feel I must remind you thar the 17th century is usually regarded as "Early Modern" by historians.

Anyway, on how some events in the 1600's have lingering effects:

Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion's_Seed) by David Hackett Fischer
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/David_Hackett_Fischer_-_Albion%27s_Seed_Four_British_Folkways_in_America. jpeg/220px-David_Hackett_Fischer_-_Albion%27s_Seed_Four_British_Folkways_in_America. jpeg

Which details how four different folkways in the United States got their starts from four different migrations:

East Anglia to Massachusetts:
The Exodus of the English Puritans (Pilgrims influenced the Northeastern United States' corporate and educational culture).

The South of England to Virginia:
Distressed Cavaliers and indentured Servants (Gentry influenced the Southern United States' plantation culture).

North Midlands to the Delaware Valley::
The Friends' Migration (Quakers influenced the Middle Atlantic and Midwestern United States' industrial culture).

Borderlands to the Backcountry:
The Flight from North Britain (Scotch-Irish, or border English, influenced the Western United States' ranch culture and the Southern United States' common agrarian culture).

Recommended
:smile:

krugaan

2017-12-08, 04:54 PM

.
I'm not a Mod so my opinion doesn't count, but FWLIW your previous posts to this thread didn't argue who or what to vote for, so I imagine they're good. Sometimes if I worry whether my posts will be appropriate I'll PM the Mods.

Humans are "political animals, because nature, which does nothing in vain, has equipped them with speech, which enables them to communicate moral concepts such as justice which are formative of the household and city-state" (to sort of quote Aristotle, which I do because I'm STUNNINGLY HUMBLE), so maybe something can feel like politics without being politics?

Something to get PASSIONATE about.

What does LOGIC say?

.
Despite my STUNNING HUMILITY :smallwink:, I feel I must remind you thar the 17th century is usually regarded as "Early Modern" by historians.

Anyway, on how some events in the 1600's have lingering effects:

Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion's_Seed) by David Hackett Fischer
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/David_Hackett_Fischer_-_Albion%27s_Seed_Four_British_Folkways_in_America. jpeg/220px-David_Hackett_Fischer_-_Albion%27s_Seed_Four_British_Folkways_in_America. jpeg

Which details how four different folkways in the United States got their starts from four different migrations:

East Anglia to Massachusetts:
The Exodus of the English Puritans (Pilgrims influenced the Northeastern United States' corporate and educational culture).

The South of England to Virginia:
Distressed Cavaliers and indentured Servants (Gentry influenced the Southern United States' plantation culture).

North Midlands to the Delaware Valley::
The Friends' Migration (Quakers influenced the Middle Atlantic and Midwestern United States' industrial culture).

Borderlands to the Backcountry:
The Flight from North Britain (Scotch-Irish, or border English, influenced the Western United States' ranch culture and the Southern United States' common agrarian culture).

Recommended
:smile:

Sounds like a fascinating read!

Scanning Wikipedia entry:

1989 is fairly ancient, and this appears to focus only on the east coast. But interesting nonetheless!

disclaimer: I'm totally not going to read it.

Was intellectualism (as we know it) even a thing back in the 1600's?

Naanomi

2017-12-08, 05:02 PM

Was intellectualism (as we know it) even a thing back in the 1600's?
Modern intellectualism often is said to begin with Aquinas and his immediate predecessors and contemporaries in the 12th and 13th centuries; but really a lot of echoing of Socratic ideals

“one will do what is right or best just as soon as one truly understands what is right or best” is Socrates and a very intellectual moralism statement

Nifft

2017-12-08, 05:08 PM

Was intellectualism (as we know it) even a thing back in the 1600's?

Intellectualism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectualism) goes back a ways.

Socratic Intellectualism was certainly a thing, and it was a thing before 1600 CE.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 05:13 PM

Modern intellectualism often is said to begin with Aquinas and his immediate predecessors and contemporaries in the 12th and 13th centuries; but really a lot of echoing of Socratic ideals

“one will do what is right or best just as soon as one truly understands what is right or best” is Socrates and a very intellectual moralism statement

Intellectualism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectualism) goes back a ways.

Socratic Intellectualism was certainly a thing, and it was a thing before 1600 CE.

Ah, right, but I meant as a major political / cultural phenomena. Although I suppose that qualifies.

To Wikipedia!

/disappears for a week

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-08, 05:14 PM

5e's approach is by far my favorite. Alignment is now two sentences that can be roleplayed for Inspiration.

It's quite elegant in it's simplicity. So was OD&D's alignment of Law/neutral/chaos. I just looked at the original table and note that Goblins were only chaotic, but orcs could be chaotic or neutral.

But I could certainly see a group of Chaotic individuals coming together for a common purpose, they just might not believe that that common purpose should be forced onto others through violence.The Usual Suspects. :smallcool:

Modern intellectualism often is said to begin with Aquinas and his immediate predecessors and contemporaries in the 12th and 13th centuries; but really a lot of echoing of Socratic ideals “one will do what is right or best just as soon as one truly understands what is right or best” is Socrates and a very intellectual moralism statement

Naanomi

2017-12-08, 05:30 PM

To Wikipedia!

/disappears for a week
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

krugaan

2017-12-08, 05:36 PM

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

Sigh, as always, it's political.

Nifft

2017-12-08, 05:41 PM

Sigh, as always, it's political.

Those political careers which would be destroyed by a better-informed electorate, should be.

Naanomi

2017-12-08, 05:42 PM

Sigh, as always, it's political.
Well, 1642 politics for the most part, but with modern parallels.

Incidentally, Law cosmologically does line up with classical intellectualism... perhaps that is why so many Scholar Gods dwell in the planes of Law (Arcadia, Mechanus, and the lower levels of Acheron)

Nifft

2017-12-08, 05:45 PM

Incidentally, Law cosmologically does line up with classical intellectualism... perhaps that is why so many Scholar Gods dwell in the planes of Law (Arcadia, Mechanus, and the lower levels of Acheron)

I did a setting where the Goddess of Knowledge was also the most Lawful... but the Goddess of Truth was Chaotic.

(The archetypes were intended to be the Rigorous Librarian vs. the Irreverent Journalist.)

krugaan

2017-12-08, 05:45 PM

Those political careers which would be destroyed by a better-informed electorate, should be.

Translation: People are dumb.

Since we have to pretend this thread is still about alignment, how would a politician who votes against the *needs* of his constituency be "aligned?"

And I'm talking about a hypothetical member of Congress, king, or emperor or whatever, and any similarity is to any living or deceased person is purely coincidental (and probable).

krugaan

2017-12-08, 05:53 PM

Well, 1642 politics for the most part, but with modern parallels.

Incidentally, Law cosmologically does line up with classical intellectualism... perhaps that is why so many Scholar Gods dwell in the planes of Law (Arcadia, Mechanus, and the lower levels of Acheron)

Law is legal, legal is writing, writing equals scholars, makes sense.

I did a setting where the Goddess of Knowledge was also the most Lawful... but the Goddess of Truth was Chaotic.

(The archetypes were intended to be the Rigorous Librarian vs. the Irreverent Journalist.)

now this is a fascinating philosophical concept. Is the essence of the universe law or chaos? Well, chaos, but I like that you made Law and Truth opposing entities, which is poignant.

Naanomi

2017-12-08, 05:56 PM

I did a setting where the Goddess of Knowledge was also the most Lawful... but the Goddess of Truth was Chaotic.

(The archetypes were intended to be the Rigorous Librarian vs. the Irreverent Journalist.)
It is true that you see some truth Gods in the CG portions of things (Beastlands and Arboria), but they tend to be more ‘trickster/teacher’ archetypes. Some ‘dispassionate/aloof’ scholars in the Outlands though that fit the more classic intellectual mould without being aligned with Law

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-08, 06:00 PM

And I'm talking about a hypothetical member of Congress, king, or emperor or whatever, and any similarity is to any living or deceased person is purely coincidental (and probable). Book recommendation.
John F Kennedy, Profiles in Courage.

He did a decent job in that book describing the three way tension any elected official (in the cases he used to illustrate they were US Senators) is under at all time:
Loyalty to his constituents (who voted for him)
Loyalty to his party (who helped senator get into the seat)
Loyalty to his country (the big picture)

A worthwhile read.

Twizzly513

2017-12-08, 06:04 PM

Oh my.

You... This just solved my inner conflict about the skewed semantics of alignment.

May Pelor bless you with all of his divine light.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 06:04 PM

It is true that you see some truth Gods in the CG portions of things (Beastlands and Arboria), but they tend to be more ‘trickster/teacher’ archetypes. Some ‘dispassionate/aloof’ scholars in the Outlands though that fit the more classic intellectual mould without being aligned with Law

I find it strange that such gods are actually aligned at all. While neutral is as close as you can get, that assumes it is on the spectrum somewhere.

I changed my mind: truth should be a neutral god. or unaligned. Probably unworshipped, too.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 06:10 PM

Book recommendation.
John F Kennedy, Profiles in Courage.

He did a decent job in that book describing the three way tension any elected official (in the cases he used to illustrate they were US Senators) is under at all time:
Loyalty to his constituents (who voted for him)
Loyalty to his party (who helped senator get into the seat)
Loyalty to his country (the big picture)

A worthwhile read.

Hmmm, I might read it. I find I don't have the energy to read books anymore, I just extract the raw ideas, unless the book is written well.

Nifft

2017-12-08, 06:19 PM

Translation: People are dumb. Nah, poorly-informed is not the same as dumb.

Since we have to pretend this thread is still about alignment, how would a politician who votes against the *needs* of his constituency be "aligned?"

And I'm talking about a hypothetical member of Congress, king, or emperor or whatever, and any similarity is to any living or deceased person is purely coincidental (and probable). Not enough info, we also need to know a bit about why.

Are these needs being ignored because the politician is enriching himself, or his friends? That would be textbook evil.

There are also non-evil reasons for that type of action, though. Wartime rationing, for example.

now this is a fascinating philosophical concept. Is the essence of the universe law or chaos? Well, chaos, but I like that you made Law and Truth opposing entities, which is poignant.

In this cosmology:

LG => Justice, Light, Sun
NG => Benevolence, Nurture, Harvest
CG => Truth, Love, Spring

LN => Knowledge, Moon, Cold
TN => Labor, Fire, Artifice
CN => Battle, Storm, Autumn

Knowledge was LN because it could be used by anyone, good or evil: "the devil can quote scripture"... and indeed the Prince of Lies was LE.

Knowledge could be used for good or evil, but the accumulation and cataloguing of knowledge was a Lawful pursuit. After all, the appeal to authority is inherently an appeal to accumulated knowledge, and to a type of tradition, without regard for the truth or goodness of the appeal.

I think the cases where LG ("Justice") is in conflict with CG ("Truth") are pretty slim, since overall both are on the side of Good -- but those cases might be very interesting.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 06:33 PM

Nah, poorly-informed is not the same as dumb.

Yes, I suppose, if you consider poorly-informed to be the same as ignorant. Ignorance is not a sin. The poorly-informed are largely not a problem anymore, I think. It's the willfully ignorant that are screwing everything up.

Not enough info, we also need to know a bit about why.

Are these needs being ignored because the politician is enriching himself, or his friends? That would be textbook evil.

There are also non-evil reasons for that type of action, though. Wartime rationing, for example.

Wartime rationing, I would say, definitely qualifies as a *need*. Lets strike the word "need" and use "thing that would better" instead.

In this cosmology:

LG => Justice, Light, Sun
NG => Benevolence, Nurture, Harvest
CG => Truth, Love, Spring

LN => Knowledge, Moon, Cold
TN => Labor, Fire, Artifice
CN => Battle, Storm, Autumn

Knowledge was LN because it could be used by anyone, good or evil: "the devil can quote scripture"... and indeed the Prince of Lies was LE.

Knowledge could be used for good or evil, but the accumulation and cataloguing of knowledge was a Lawful pursuit. After all, the appeal to authority is inherently an appeal to accumulated knowledge, and to a type of tradition, without regard for the truth or goodness of the appeal.

Which ones did you lay out for the evil side?

I think the cases where LG ("Justice") is in conflict with CG ("Truth") are pretty slim, since overall both are on the side of Good -- but those cases might be very interesting.

Meh heh heh. Still I think Truth would be better served in TN rather than CG. Truth should be static; a fact, rather than a viewpoint. Given that the entire alignment system is a perspective, I feel truth should lie outside it. But, I mean, if you have to stick it somewhere, TN.

Nifft

2017-12-08, 06:44 PM

Yes, I suppose, if you consider poorly-informed to be the same as ignorant. Ignorance is not a sin. The poorly-informed are largely not a problem anymore, I think. It's the willfully ignorant that are screwing everything up.
Uninformed & lacking knowledge: that is the definition of ignorant, and ignorance isn't a sin.

But ignorance is a weakness, and it's a weakness which can be exploited.

Rationality & critical thinking are strengths.

Which ones did you lay out for the evil side? None. I didn't want any evil gods.

Evil cults venerated demons or devils, or other horrible things, but mostly I just didn't use evil Clerics in that setting.

2D8HP

2017-12-08, 06:46 PM

In this cosmology:

LG => Justice, Light, Sun
NG => Benevolence, Nurture, Harvest
CG => Truth, Love, Spring

LN => Knowledge, Moon, Cold
TN => Labor, Fire, Artifice
CN => Battle, Storm, Autumn

Knowledge was LN because it could be used by anyone, good or evil: "the devil can quote scripture"... and indeed the Prince of Lies was LE.

Knowledge could be used for good or evil, but the accumulation and cataloguing of knowledge was a Lawful pursuit. After all, the appeal to authority is inherently an appeal to accumulated knowledge, and to a type of tradition, without regard for the truth or goodness of the appeal.

I think the cases where LG ("Justice") is in conflict with CG ("Truth") are pretty slim, since overall both are on the side of Good -- but those cases might be very interesting..
I like this!

:cool:

I'm assuming that the three Evil Alignments (of a nine-point system) are considered "Demons" and "Devils" and thus not part of the six Alignments you cited?

Hmm..

With six points you could have one god and one goddess, thus getting you 12 (like the "12 Olympian deities of Greek mythology, yes exactly who made up the 12 depended on the poet).

Some nice world-building there!

:smile:

Naanomi

2017-12-08, 06:50 PM

Truth should be static; a fact, rather than a viewpoint.
In many ways ‘static’ is a big part of Law.

The Great Law of War and Chaos, cosmologically, was the battle for an objective, static, predeterministic existance Law desired, and a totally subjective, ever changing, completely unpredictable one sought by Chaos... an echo in a way of the battles between the existence and non-existence in earlier times (where existence mostly won)

The fact that the Great Wheel exists as it does shows that Law mostly won, with even Chaos being ‘placed’ in the larger organization, but not entirely (hence the continued presence of free will and the like)

krugaan

2017-12-08, 06:51 PM

Uninformed & lacking knowledge: that is the definition of ignorant, and ignorance isn't a sin.

But ignorance is a weakness, and it's a weakness which can be exploited.

Rationality & critical thinking are strengths.

I would say lacking knowledge and being uninformed are virtually identical.

I suppose even being dumb is not a sin: you can't help being unintelligent.

Foolishness is the better word, I suppose?

None. I didn't want any evil gods.

Evil cults venerated demons or devils, or other horrible things, but mostly I just didn't use evil Clerics in that setting.

I suppose that makes sense. I don't think there were many evil cultures back in the day; they all got stomped.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 06:55 PM

In many ways ‘static’ is a big part of Law.

I'll buy that, depending on your viewpoint.

The Great Law of War and Chaos, cosmologically, was the battle for an objective, static, predeterministic existance Law desired, and a totally subjective, ever changing, completely unpredictable one sought by Chaos... an echo in a way of the battles between the existence and non-existence in earlier times (where existence mostly won)

I think the definitions are different now, for law and chaos. They've certainly changed a bit over the editions. I dislike that existence / non-existence dichotomy to describe order and chaos, that seems a bit too close to the good and evil axis for my liking.

To me, life and free will are conceived at the juncture of all these different axes. If law is order and chaos is randomness, you need both.

The fact that the Great Wheel exists as it does shows that Law mostly won, with even Chaos being ‘placed’ in the larger organization, but not entirely (hence the continued presence of free will and the like)

Whoa, are we still talking about Forgotten Realms here?

Naanomi

2017-12-08, 07:09 PM

I think the definitions are different now, for law and chaos. They've certainly changed a bit over the editions. I dislike that existence / non-existence dichotomy to describe order and chaos
It echoes that conflict, but yes you are correct. The existence/non-existence battle predated the existence of Law/Chaos (and Good/Evil) as cosmological forces... Draeden on the side of Non-existence (who wanted existence left immaterial and formless) and... someone else on the side of Existence (sometimes called ‘the Gods’ but clearly predating Gods as we know them... perhaps Over-Deities; it ancient Elemental precursors, or sometimes hypothesized as Primordeal dragons of the type that eventually became deified as Io).

Law/Chaos has vibes of this but existence/non-existence is much more
Primordeal and ancient than even the Law/Chaos split (which is, generally, a much more fundamental dichotomy to existence than Good/Evil, despite ‘current’ planar politics emphasizing that difference)

Whoa, are we still talking about Forgotten Realms here?The Great Wheel, encompassing Planescape and most other settings, including the model of the Planes that contain the Forgotten Realms as detailed in the DMG. 3e and 4e Forgotten Realms moved away from that model a bit, but seems like 5e is back on the Great Wheel default

2D8HP

2017-12-08, 07:16 PM

In many ways ‘static’ is a big part of Law.....
That fits with how Michael Moorcock eventually viewed "Law" (while earlier he was closer to Poul Anderson's, the originator, conception)

...To me, life and free will are conceived at the juncture of all these different axes. If law is order and chaos is randomness, you need both... .
If you've read the "Elric" series, from which D&D "borrowed" much of this, you may remember that Elric visits a "world" (plane/dimension/alternate reality) of "Chaos" and finds a whirling cloud, in-which creatures and objects sometimes flash in and out of existence. He also visits a "world of Law" which is nothing but a grey mist.

A nice 21st century use of the Law vs. Chaos trope, is in Genevieve Cogman's Invisible Library series, in which different worlds (alternate realities) have more or less "Chaos" or "Law".

Heavy Chaos worlds are ruled by the Fey, who are the main antagonists, Law world's are ruled by (often hidden) Dragons, and we are told that while too much Chaos is worse, with too much Law humans are controlled by Dragons and not free.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 07:21 PM

Law/Chaos has vibes of this but existence/non-existence is much more
Primordeal and ancient than even the Law/Chaos split (which is, generally, a much more fundamental dichotomy to existence than Good/Evil, despite ‘current’ planar politics emphasizing that difference)
The Great Wheel, encompassing Planescape and most other settings, including the model of the Planes that contain the Forgotten Realms as detailed in the DMG. 3e and 4e Forgotten Realms moved away from that model a bit, but seems like 5e is back on the Great Wheel default

I'll admit, I didn't pay much attention to the greater cosmology of DnD because I thought it was boring.

Back when I was trying to envision a cosmos for myself, I thought all the religions should be different. I understand the cosmology works the way it does because the gods are, you know, pretty active on Toril, but religion is pretty much heraldry in DnD.

My precursor elves worshipped abstract deities like existence, definition, and motion. The humans worshipped vaguely generic protector gods or social gods.

Even GoT has radically dissimilar religions. The Seven are like the Greek Pantheon, the Old Gods is like shamanism, the One True God is obviously some flavor of Abrahamic religion.

In Dnd, there is only one religion, with a bunch of patron saints.

Tanarii

2017-12-08, 07:22 PM

Static was definitely part of the Pattern in the Amber series, which was the counterpart of Chaos.

Of course, Amber took the standard tack that Chaos is merely the absence of an organizing force, and is what was there before order was imposed. The baseline, primal, pre-everything, so to speak.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 07:26 PM

.
That fits with how Michael Moorcock eventually viewed "Law" (while earlier he was closer to Poul Anderson's, the originator, conception)

.
If you've read the "Elric" series, from which D&D "borrowed" much of this, you may remember that Elric visits a "world" (plane/dimension/alternate reality) of "Chaos" and finds a whirling cloud, in-which creatures and objects sometimes flash in and out of existence. He also visits a "world of Law" which is nothing but a grey mist.

A nice 21st century use of the Law vs. Chaos trope, is in Genevieve Cogman's Invisible Library series, in which different worlds (alternate realities) have more or less "Chaos" or "Law".

Heavy Chaos worlds are ruled by the Fey, who are the main antagonists, Law world's are ruled by (often hidden) Dragons, and we are told that while too much Chaos is worse, with too much Law humans are controlled by Dragons and not free.

Goddamnit 2D8, everytime you make a comparison, I have to figure out which century it's in, lol.

I honestly haven't read much new sci-fi fantasy, it's difficult for me to ascribe to. A lot of sci-fi seems to spend overmuch time world-building and not a lot on character building, although the world building is indeed interesting sometimes.

A lot of it is also thinly veiled political commentary varnished with a veneer of plot, and not an honest "what if the universe worked like this" sort of thing.

I will look into this Elric thing, though.

krugaan

2017-12-08, 07:30 PM

2D8HP

2017-12-08, 07:31 PM

....Amber took the standard tack that Chaos is merely the absence of an organizing force, and is what was there before order was imposed. The baseline, primal, pre-everything, so to speak..

I never read Roger Zelazny's Amber series (I read his Dilvish, the Damned instead, yes I'm a bad man for that), but what you described of Amber fits Greek mythology as well, which has Khaos existing first.

Naanomi

2017-12-08, 07:37 PM

I'll admit, I didn't pay much attention to the greater cosmology of DnD because I thought it was boring.

...

In Dnd, there is only one religion, with a bunch of patron saints.
I’m a big fan of DnD Cosmology, it is much more detailed and intricate than a lot of people give it credit for (though it takes a lot of reading of a lot of edition’s sources to get a good grasp of the ‘big picture’); but in an attempt to create cohesion it is a bit ‘uniform’.

In a way, it was kind of one of the ideas of Planescape that made it that way... the differentiation of religions and focus on the Gods was largely a misunderstanding of mortal races. Gods are all more or less the same type of being, none of them created the cosmos, there are at least two orders of cosmic being above them, and in lots of ways few are even all that cosmically important... Asmodeus is way more important in the Planes in his role as Lord of Baator than any divinity he may or may not have)... and that mortals think otherwise is one of the many ways they are called Clueless

Nifft

2017-12-08, 07:39 PM

.
I like this!
(...)
Some nice world-building there!

:smile:

Thanks!

Much as I'd love to gush about one of my settings, this isn't the thread for it... so I made a new thread over in World-Building: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?544304-Six-God-Pantheon

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-08, 10:59 PM

Hmmm, I might read it. I find I don't have the energy to read books anymore, I just extract the raw ideas, unless the book is written well. It won the Pulitzer Prize in 1957. You need not buy it; most libraries will have it. I found it accessible when I read it in high school, and it was just as good a few decades later when I read it again to refresh when my son read it when he was in high school.

Good read.