Guess and argue fictional characters D&D "Alignments"

[2D8HP]

Lots of "Alignment" threads these past few months, and my post at the Favorite scene evar? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22769927#post22769927), have made me feel like guessing and reading arguments of fictional characters D&D "Alignments" (ignoring that the traditional 9 points AD&D/WD&D "Alignment system" may not map multi-dimensiontional characters).

I'll let others pick "Alignments" for Batman, Daenerys Targaryen, Han Solo, Harry Dresden, etc (please do! :smallsmile:)


(In no particular order)

From the Discworld novels

Tiffany Aching,
https://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Screen-Shot-2015-08-03-at-10.34.50-e1438605544806.png

Neutral Good


Sam Vines,
http://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Samuel-Vimes-Discworld-Pratchett-early.jpg

Lawful Good


Lord Havelock Vetinari,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6d/Lord_Vetinari.jpg/200px-Lord_Vetinari.jpg

Lawful Evil, trending Lawful Neutral


Rick from Casablanca,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Humphrey_Bogart_in_Casablanca_trailer.jpg/267px-Humphrey_Bogart_in_Casablanca_trailer.jpg
I'll peg as someone Neutral Good, trying to be Evil, but coming around again to being Good.


Tom Joad at the end of the Grapes of Wrath,
https://travsd.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/url8.jpg?w=723
outside of Robin Hood, maybe one of the purest distillation of Chaotic Good in fiction.

Atticus Finch, from To Kill A Mockingbird,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/Atticus_Finch.png/250px-Atticus_Finch.png
is a quintessence of Lawful Good (thanks to a post of @Red Fel's for reminding me of this),



Conan,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Weird_Tales_May_1934.jpg/220px-Weird_Tales_May_1934.jpg

Chaotic Neutral


Thulsa Doom in Conan the Barbarian,
http://IMAGES1.laweekly.com/imager/even-darth-vader-would-keep-his-distance-f/u/original/2440704/jej02a.jpg

Lawful Evil


Richard the 3rd in Richard lll,
http://www.mckellen.com/images/t/0040.jpg

Neutral Evil


Bruno Anthony in Strangers on a Train
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Robert_Walker_in_Strangers_on_a_Train_trailer_%282 %29..png/220px-Robert_Walker_in_Strangers_on_a_Train_trailer_%282 %29..png

Chaotic Evil


Harry Lime in The Third Man
https://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/the-third-man_harry-lime-first-view.jpg

Neutral Evil


Phyllis Dietrichson & Walter Neff in
Double Indemnity
http://theretroset.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/DoubleIndemnity_Header.jpg

Both Chaotic Evil


Now I'm going to do a bunch from one film, Excalibur:

Sir Perceval,
https://newlandofwelinton.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/paul-geoffrey.jpg

Lawful Good, and the true hero of the film, if I ever play an old-fashioned D&D Paladin, this will be the model

Uther Pendragon,
http://www.byrneholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/20100227_Excalibur.jpg

His step-daughter Morgana (they combined the characters of Morgan le Fay, and her sister Morgause for the film),
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/c/cd/Morgana_le_Fay_%28Excalibur%29.jpg/revision/latest/thumbnail-down/width/310/height/400?cb=20120613023217

and her son Mordred
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/de/01/52/de0152b38db02901e3ceadbda377d8bc--excalibur-medieval-times.jpg

all Chaotic Evil

Mordred's father
King Arthur Pendragon
https://alexanderluthor.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/14455.jpg

and his wife,
Queen Guinevere,
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ee7oSfT8KpY/TvVIHOJEKcI/AAAAAAAABGc/c6CuajoH7do/s400/large_excalibur_blu-ray_8.jpg
both, Neutral Good, yep that's right, argue with me!

Merlin,
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wfc8IGcp6sY/TvVFsDnwtgI/AAAAAAAABGQ/XuEsTCtTBsA/s280/images-2.jpg

I can't even guess.

A force of Chaos, that profeses Lawful aims.

Okay, please pick some fictional characters, peg them to an Alignment, or argue with previous choices.

Thanks!

[Reddish Mage]

I haven’t had an alignment conversation in well over a year (mostly because they occur mostly in other forums than media) but over the last decade or so this forum has always teemed with them producing some of the most divisive and forum-rule breaking discussions to be had.

After seeing countless threads, the only conclusion (one that several people including the Giant has stated) is that the nine alignments are so vague that one can’t ever expect perfect agreement on what they mean and who should have what alignment.

I think this is especially true of law and chaos. People are also not used to thinking about morality in that way like they are in terms of “good” and “evil” so the ideas people have about what is lawful and chaotic vary quite a bit more. However, the text itself throws the law-chaos axis in contradictory directions. So many contradictory things are said about the axis that many actions might be indicative of either law or chaos. For example in the players handbook the Monk is lawful because of her dedication to her discipline but Mialee the Mage is neutral because of her dedication to her art. The words “discipline” and “art” however, are synonyms in English.

Finally, I’ve seen forum debate where James Bond was literally argued to be each of the 9 alignments.

After that I’m not sure alignment related discussions are all that valuable barring a specific D&D related purpose. Also, after seeing a ton of fictional character alignment charts, I wouldn’t put any stock in them.

[Fri]

http://gallery.burrowowl.net/images/59/599b2541b6e1fc324a403da63f682206

[Metahuman1]

Well, here's a thought for this.



The D&D Cartoon.

What Alignments are the main character kids?

[2D8HP]

Well, here's a thought for this.



The D&D Cartoon.

What Alignments are the main character kids?.
Since they were under 1e AD&D rules, post Unearthed Arcana (which I read in the store, didn't like, and pretty much was the end of my buying D&D stuff), the Barbarian would have to be Chaotic (something), so probably Chaotic Good (if UA matches the Barbarian class from The Dragon article), the Thief would have to be (something) Neutral, Neutral (sometimg), or (somethimg) Evil, so probably Neutral Good, the Ranger would have to be (something) Good, and the Monk would have to be (Lawful) something, I don't remember the rules for Cavalier, and the Magic-User could be any alignment under the rules (weird how I still remember the class alignment restrictions decades after I played AD&D).

I was already a teenager (15 to 17 years old) during the shows run, and didn't watch all of it, or much Saturday morning cartoons at all during that time (unlike the earlier Thundar the Barbarian which I watched avidly).

But I'd say one Chaotic Good Barbarian, and the rest Lawful or Neutral Good.

[Reddish Mage]

http://gallery.burrowowl.net/images/59/599b2541b6e1fc324a403da63f682206

I said alignment is vague, this chart makes it absurd. There’s no version of Batman (lacking mind control) that can be described as evil.

Yes some alignment treatment of actions are contradictory but good and evil are sometimes quite distinct and this is one of the times.

[Fri]

Fair, the evil one is Crazy Steve pretending to be batman

(it's referring to the theory that the batman in Frank miller's all star batman is a crazy hobo who found batman costume)

[Metahuman1]

I said alignment is vague, this chart makes it absurd. There’s no version of Batman (lacking mind control) that can be described as evil.

Yes some alignment treatment of actions are contradictory but good and evil are sometimes quite distinct and this is one of the times.

Were's there a couple of versions of Batman that were in fact soulless blood sucking vampires whom fed on the innocent?

[Drascin]

I said alignment is vague, this chart makes it absurd. There’s no version of Batman (lacking mind control) that can be described as evil.

Yes some alignment treatment of actions are contradictory but good and evil are sometimes quite distinct and this is one of the times.

Honesty, Batman absolutely has descended to Lawful Evil on occassion - this stuff is what you get when a character is written by someone who fundamentally doesn't GET the character.

[Eldan]

I don't see how you can argue Harry Dresden to be anything but Chaotic Good. He's sarcastic about it occasionally, but I don't have any doubt about it.

Just see him opposite any authority figure. He pisses them off on purpose and enjoys it greatly. On the other hand, strong personal loyalties to people he respects. Entirely too willing to break laws and rules, occasionally lie and cheat, even to his best and most respected friends.

Messiah complex the size of the planet. Self-sacrifices all over for other people. Did... things (spoilers) because he thought he might potentially turn evil. Tries to help everyone he meets, especially anyone he sees as weak or innocent. Goes ballistic when children are concerned.

[Reddish Mage]

Were's there a couple of versions of Batman that were in fact soulless blood sucking vampires whom fed on the innocent?

Those versions aren't "Batman" they are distinctly separate fiction characters that might have the name as well as being Batman's alternative Earth doppelgänger.


Honesty, Batman absolutely has descended to Lawful Evil on occassion - this stuff is what you get when a character is written by someone who fundamentally doesn't GET the character.

An evil act does not (usually) automatically shift a character's alignment.

Moreover, by your own explanation, writers who on occasion write Batman in ways consistent with lawful evil don't understand or "GET" the character. You yourself assume there is a singular "character" that can be gotten and that character is not lawful evil.

[Yanisa]

http://gallery.burrowowl.net/images/59/599b2541b6e1fc324a403da63f682206
http://orig00.deviantart.net/a362/f/2010/104/e/7/superman_d_d_alignment_by_granite_m.png

[Kyberwulf]

Man, Dresden is Lawful Neutral. Although the lawful part... is pretty loose. lol

While he isn't outright evil. He has to much stain on his soul to be considered gud. To willing to do the things you aren't suppose to do to get the job done. However he does have a lot of rules that he follows and doesn't break. If he says he will do something, he will get it done. for the most part. Again, being lawful doesn't mean you follow every rule, just that you follow a set of rules you will not break. Also, he does respect the laws of others as long as they don't get in his way.

[Dr.Samurai]

Man, Dresden is Lawful Neutral. Although the lawful part... is pretty loose. lol
Sayeth what?

While he isn't outright evil. He has to much stain on his soul to be considered gud.
What stains on his soul prevent him from being a good person?

[Gnoman]

What stains on his soul prevent him from being a good person?

Well, he did spend several years communing with a fallen angel and channeling the power of Hell itself, is bound to the service of a fairly wicked fairy, and has dabbled with multiple forms of black magic. Not to mention the genocide.


I don't think it is enough to push him all the way from Good to Neutral (it takes a lot of moral fiber to threaten a literal angel of death in a misguided attempt to protect a good man), but by Skin Game he's wandered pretty close to that line.



I do agree that he's much more Lawful (his own internal code is extremely strict, and much of his knee-jerk rejection of authority is due to the number of authorities he's met that don't live up to his standards) than he is Chaotic. Depending on how you rate his actions, he's somewhere at the border of Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good, and True Neutral.

[Peelee]

Well, here's a thought for this.



The D&D Cartoon.

What Alignments are the main character kids?


.
Since they were under 1e AD&D rules, post Unearthed Arcana (which I read in the store, didn't like, and pretty much was the end of my buying D&D stuff), the Barbarian would have to be Chaotic (something), so probably Chaotic Good (if UA matches the Barbarian class from The Dragon article), the Thief would have to be (something) Neutral, Neutral (sometimg), or (somethimg) Evil, so probably Neutral Good, the Ranger would have to be (something) Good, and the Monk would have to be (Lawful) something, I don't remember the rules for Cavalier, and the Magic-User could be any alignment under the rules (weird how I still remember the class alignment restrictions decades after I played AD&D).

I was already a teenager (15 to 17 years old) during the shows run, and didn't watch all of it, or much Saturday morning cartoons at all during that time (unlike the earlier Thundar the Barbarian which I watched avidly).

But I'd say one Chaotic Good Barbarian, and the rest Lawful or Neutral Good.

Fun fact! The DVD set contains a booklet that has, among other things, the full character stats for everyone! It looks like the stats are for 3.5 edition (the current edition at the time of DVD set release), but I dunno, I've never played any previous version. Enjoy:


Hank Human Male Ranger 7th AL: LG
S: 14 D: 17 C: 15 I: 10 W: 15 Ch: 18 HP: 49
Feats: Dodge, Endurance, Manyshot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Track, Weapon Focus (Longbow)
Equip: +3 Studded Leather, Energy Bow (+2 Composite Longbow that accommodates any strength, force arrows deal 2d6 and ignore miss chance for incorporeal, shed light as a torch, can make power shots with Hank taking a negative to attack and adding that number to damage), Amulet of Natural Armor +1, lesser bracers of archery, ring of protection +1, masterwork longsword, potion of cure light wounds, potion of resist cold 20, some normal gear

Eric Male Human Fighter 7th AL: NG
S: 18 D: 13 C: 14 I: 13 W: 10 Ch: 9 HP: 57
Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Improved Initiative, Improved Shield Bash, Lightning Reflexes, Run, Weapon Focus (Shield), Weapon Specialization (Shield)
Equip: +2 Elven Chain, Griffon Shield (+2 Bashing Heavy Steel Shield that can be wielded two handed, as an immediate action can create a 10ft diameter Otiluke's Resilient Sphere centered on Eric, any other creature in the area may make a Reflex save DC16 to be pushed into the nearest open square on a success, effect can be dismissed as a standard action or until the duration elapses. The sphere effect may be used for 5 rounds per day which need not be consecutive.), Bag of holding (type I), cloak of resistance +2, gauntlets of ogre power +2, potion of cure moderate wounds, some normal gear.

Diana Human Female Monk 7th AL: LG
S: 14 D: 17 C: 16 I: 13 W: 17 Ch: 13 HP: 56
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, Lightning Reflexes, Stunning Fist, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Quarterstaff), Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
Equip: Javelin Staff (+2 ki strike quarterstaff when used in melee or +2 ki strike javelin when thrown, allows use of stunning fist in melee or at range, can extend to 20 feet or shrink to the size of a toothpick as a standard action but can not be used as a weapon in either form, +5 bonus to jump checks, Diana may make a free trip attack whenever the staff hits someone without provoking attacks of opportunity and if the attempt fails the opponent may not attempt to trip Diana), amulet of natural armor +1, bracers of armor +3, ring of protection +1, vest of escape, potion of cure serious wounds, some normal gear.

Presto Human Male Wizard 7th AL: NG
S: 11 D: 9 C: 16 I: 20 W: 15 Ch: 13 HP: 40
Feats: Combat Casting, Empower Spell, Lightning Reflexes, Magical Aptitude, Scribe Scroll, Spell Focus (Evocation)
Equip: dagger, Hat of Many Spells (acts as a rod of wonder, Presto can reach into the hat and produce any spell component up to 1000 gp for any spell he casts (component lasts 1 round), use the hat to Empower a spell he is casting or cast a spell directly from his spellbook but these effects can be unpredictable - roll percentile dice: on 1 - 35 the spell is wasted but a rod of wonder effect occurs, 36 - 65 the spell takes effect but a rod of wonder effect occurs as well, 66 - 100 the spell takes effect as desired.), Amulet of Natural Armor +1, cloak of resistance +2, headband of intellect +2, ring of protection +1, spellbook, potion of aid, potion of cure serious wounds, potion of displacement, wand of magic missile (7th), some normal gear

Sheila Human Female Rogue 7th AL: NG
S: 10 D: 18 C: 17 I: 14 W: 13 Ch: 15 HP: 48
Feats: Skill Focus (Use Magic Device), Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Rapier)
Equip: +2 Mithral Shirt, ring of protection +1, two masterwork rapiers, Cloak of Invisibility (Invisibility as the spell 5/day, greater invisibility 2/day for 1d4 rounds, Sheila needs a free hand to activate the cloak, if damaged while invisible Sheila becomes visible and the cloak stops functioning for 2d4 rounds), potion of cure moderate wounds, scroll of raise dead, scroll of sanctuary, wand of cure moderate wounds (25 charges), some normal gear

Bobby Human Male Barbarian 7th AL: CG
S: 19 D: 13 C: 18 I: 11 W: 8 Ch: 10 HP: 79
Feats: Cleave, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greatclub)
Equip: Thunder Club (+2 greatclub, grants +4 Strength, 3/day Bobby may strike the ground and cause a tremor in a 30 foot line those in the area must make a Reflex DC 20 or fall prone), +2 hide armor, amulet of natural armor +2, boots of the winterlands, potion of cure light wounds, potion of heroism, salve of slipperiness, sovereign glue, universal solvent, some normal gear

Uni 3HD Young Unicorn (Small Magical Beast) AL: LG CR: 2
S: 10 D: 17 C: 21 I: 10 W: 16 Ch: 17 HP: 31
Feats: Alertness, Skill Focus (Survival)
SA/SQ: Magic Circle against Evil 10 radius; immune to charm, compulsion, and poison; alicorn (Uni's horn is treated as +1 magic weapon); darkvision 60 feet; lowlight vision; scent
Spell like abilities: Cure light wounds 3/day, cure moderate wounds 1/day, neutralize poison (touch only DC 17) 1/day, greater teleport (within forest only) 1/day (caster Level 5th)




Venger Male Half Fiend Human Sorcerer 13th/ Archmage 5th AL: NE
S: 18 D: 22 C: 26 I: 18 W: 15 Ch: 24 HP: 190
Feats: Empower Spell, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lighting Reflexes, Skill Focus (Spellcraft), Spell Focus (Evocation), Spell Focus (Necromancy), Weapon Focus (Ray)
Equip: Amulet of Health +6, Bracers of Armor +8, Cape of Montebank, Bead of Force, Elemental Gem (Fire), Maximize Metamagic Rod, Potion of Barkskin +3, Potion of Cat's Grace
High Arcana: Arcane Fire, Arcane Reach, Mastery of Elements, Mastery of Shaping, Spell Power +1
Sorcerer Spells Known: (Caster Level 19)
0th (6/day): arcane mark, detect magic, ghost sound, light, mage hand, open/close, read magic, resistance, touch of fatigue
1st (8/day): expeditious retreat, magic missile, protection from good, ray of enfeeblement, shield
2nd (8/day): Knock, false life, scorching ray, touch of idiocy, web
3rd (8/day): dispel magic, displacement, fireball, hold person
4th (7/day): animate dead, bestow curse, polymorph, wall of ice
5th (6/day): cone of cold, symbol of pain, telekinesis, wall of force
6th (6/day): chain lightning, flesh to stone, Otiluke's freezing sphere
7th (6/day): control undead, delayed blast fireball, limited wish
8th (4/day): Otiluke's Telekinetic Sphere, polar ray
9th (2/day): Imprisonment
Also, obviously, the Dungeon Master is a Cheese Elemental.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, he did spend several years communing with a fallen angel and channeling the power of Hell itself...
Well, sure. But... He was exposed to Lasciel's power because he was saving an innocent child from being exposed to and corrupted by her instead.

And then in those years that she was tempting him, he was so incorruptible that instead of Dresden turning to evil, she actually commits an act of self sacrifice to save him, rebelling against her evil nature instead.

So, I chalk this up to "Dresden is good".

is bound to the service of a fairly wicked fairy
Sure. But...

Dresden could have always been bound to Mab. But he has resisted her offer time and time again. She, as an immortal, can simply wait him out, until he is so desperate that he comes to her for aid. Obviously, we see that happen in Changes. But it doesn't make him evil, or not good. He didn't serve her because he wants to be evil and wants the power she grants for the sake of being a tyrant over others. He serves her, yes, but he still has agency and still enacts her orders without being evil. They even say in Skin Game that Mab had Dresden get involved precisely because she could count on him to foil Nicodemus' plans.

and has dabbled with multiple forms of black magic.
He hasn't actually broken any of the rules though right? As opposed to someone like... the Blackstaff.

Not to mention the genocide.
So the destruction of monsters outweighs the liberation of entire nations of humans that up until that point were various levels of pawn, slave, chattel?

I don't think it is enough to push him all the way from Good to Neutral (it takes a lot of moral fiber to threaten a literal angel of death in a misguided attempt to protect a good man), but by Skin Game he's wandered pretty close to that line.
Yeah I'm not really seeing it. Much of the plot in The Dresden Files is driven by the fact that Dresden is trying to be a good person and do the right thing despite the various powerful and dangerous forces arrayed against him. He's always getting in deeper because he's trying to do good. By Skin Game, he appears to be all the things people are suspicious of him for, but as the reader we have a more intimate perspective and know why/how he was using Hellfire, why he is the Winter Knight, how it came to be that he eradicated an entire court of vampires, etc. It's not because he's evil, or borderline evil, or anything like that.

I do agree that he's much more Lawful (his own internal code is extremely strict, and much of his knee-jerk rejection of authority is due to the number of authorities he's met that don't live up to his standards) than he is Chaotic. Depending on how you rate his actions, he's somewhere at the border of Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good, and True Neutral.
When I think of Law/Chaos, I think of adhering to what society expects/wants vs adhering to what you want. And in that sense, I think Dresden is closer to chaotic than lawful. He doesn't care what a law, or tradition, or even a god has to say. He'll run his mouth, he'll defy you, he'll fight you, whatever it is he thinks he needs to do, he'll do it according to his own principles. And I definitely think he's good. If I had to come down on an alignment, I'd say neutral good.

[Kyberwulf]

The disconnect you are having, isn't that Dresden is an evil person, or borderline evil. He isn't. We know this, everyone around knows it, even his enemies know it. Inherently, yeah Dresden is a good person. Not in an alignment sense. The problem is that he doesn't see himself this way. This allows himself to LET himself do horrible acts. The thing is though, he KNOWS he is doing horrible acts, and doesn't try to lie to himself about it. What evil people do is do those acts, and then try to justify those actions.

Yes, he killed of a lot of horrible monsters. He didn't do it for good reasons. He didn't do it out of any sense of altruism. He did it cause they wronged him. He knows about all the horrible things in the world. He doesn't do anything about them, until they do something to him first.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't see how you can argue Harry Dresden to be anything but Chaotic Good. He's sarcastic about it occasionally, but I don't have any doubt about it.

Just see him opposite any authority figure. He pisses them off on purpose and enjoys it greatly. On the other hand, strong personal loyalties to people he respects. Entirely too willing to break laws and rules, occasionally lie and cheat, even to his best and most respected friends.

Messiah complex the size of the planet. Self-sacrifices all over for other people. Did... things (spoilers) because he thought he might potentially turn evil. Tries to help everyone he meets, especially anyone he sees as weak or innocent. Goes ballistic when children are concerned.

Agreed. Despite all his self-flagellation and deprecation, he does everything he does with goodness in mind without ever really actually going over any clear lines I can point to. He is solidly chaotic good despite him beating himself up about wielding powers that are labeled Evil(TM).

I mean lets remember that this entire series is narrated from Dresden's own self depreciating viewpoint about himself, and thus probably doesn't give himself enough credit. He is oddly similar to Ciaphas Cain in that regard. I mean The Knights of the Cross for whatever reason are still his allies and friends. I think that counts for a lot, because if he really stepped over a line, I'm pretty sure those guys would rightly turn against him. Furthermore, Uriel is still on his side. an angel. The black ops angel but an angel nonetheless. He really hasn't done anything I can really label as bad enough to be anything but good

I mean so far his "hellish powers" didn't involve doing anything evil to cast, his Winter Knight mantle is not reflective of alignment as its just some external magic thing put inside him rather than his actual morality, his T-rex stunt didn't really seem to affect his morality at all, and despite his whole "I'm going to burn the world to save my daughter" rant, the only people he ends up destroying are those Red Court jerks which no one sheds a tear for. I think we can safely say his professed "burn the world, I'm rescuing my daughter" thing and him talking about his plans for other deals is him speaking out of stress of the moment really, he never really did anything that truly crosses the line, like ok he got some primal magic sexytimes with Mab, who cares, like ok he killed the Red Court, awesome.

Like.....I guess some of this is somehow morally ambiguous if your being a complete knight templar about viewing his actions and think that somehow he could be gooderer than he already is, but all the actions he takes is reasonable and have had positive effects on the world while getting rid of truly horrible monsters, I can't ask for anything more good than that.

[Drascin]

An evil act does not (usually) automatically shift a character's alignment.

Moreover, by your own explanation, writers who on occasion write Batman in ways consistent with lawful evil don't understand or "GET" the character. You yourself assume there is a singular "character" that can be gotten and that character is not lawful evil.

That is the joke of that poster, dude. That Batman's different writers have written him in such different ways that you can find runs that write him as basically every alignment.

Course, fans do have their own ideas. Hence wht Fri said - for example, Miller's Batman is memefied to not actually BE Batman, but a hobo in a Batman suit, because the way he acts is straight up Evil, and fans are like "um, I'm pretty sure Batman is not supposed to be like this". But the (actually pretty long!) run with Batman being more or less a pro-totalitarianism fascist ****head absolutely exists. Hence the poster.

[Eldan]

One of my personal metrics for lawful or chaotic is whether you respect a person in authority because of the "person" or the "authority" part more. "WE respect the king because he is the king" is lawful. "I respect the king because he's a good man" is chaotic. Following the rules you set for yourself, on the other hand, I don't really see as that lawful, though it can be an indication.

So, to me, Dresden is chaotic. But then, as we've seen, law and chaos are up to debate. I just made my own definition that I think mostly works for me.

[Kato]

Honestly, I feel the lawful/chaotic distinction is way easier than the good/evil one if you don't want to stick to mere personal opinion. Of course there are a few people who consider themselves evil but for the majority they have some kind of reasoning why their actions are good, so in their own eyes they are good. Of course their opponents think differently but who are we to judge which side is correct? To go with an old popular argument : is the established government defending itself against terrorists good or is it the rebel alliance fighting the evil empire? Sure, blowing up a planet doesn't sound too nice but on a stellar scale it's akin to.. I just realized my comparison might be a little bit too close to real life politics. Let's just say it's not that destructive if there are millions of other planets.

[Lord Raziere]

Honestly, I feel the lawful/chaotic distinction is way easier than the good/evil one if you don't want to stick to mere personal opinion. Of course there are a few people who consider themselves evil but for the majority they have some kind of reasoning why their actions are good, so in their own eyes they are good. Of course their opponents think differently but who are we to judge which side is correct? To go with an old popular argument : is the established government defending itself against terrorists good or is it the rebel alliance fighting the evil empire? Sure, blowing up a planet doesn't sound too nice but on a stellar scale it's akin to.. I just realized my comparison might be a little bit too close to real life politics. Let's just say it's not that destructive if there are millions of other planets.

morality is not about knowing, because we'll never have perfect information. its about being aware and not-knowing, and doing something about it because of the possibilities that could occur if we didn't do something. I can't imagine a galactic consequences of a single planet existing or not existing, but I can imagine the consequence of the planet itself: I can either imagine a future where that planet is all destroyed in a burst of searing, screaming agony from a horrible light as they are ripped to atoms, their last moments being pure burning torment on every part of their body, or I can imagine a future where the innocents, the children and all the people on there continue to live happy lives because I intervened. given those two possibilities, it is right to pick to defend the planet every time.

[Kyberwulf]

There is a flaw in that reasoning though.

You respect the man cause' he is King. sure law.
You respect the man cause he is a man.. that is neutral.
You don't care about the man. That is chaotic.

[hamishspence]

"You respect the man because he's done stuff that you think is enough to earn your respect" is a Chaotic reason for giving respect.

Alternatively:

"You respect the man because that's your default - you respect everybody until they lose your respect"

That's Drizzt's version (novel "Drizzt essay" on respect at the start of a section)- Drizzt being CG in most (all?) stattings.


According to Fiendish Codex 2 - obeying somebody you do not respect, is Lawful - an "Obesiant act" - textbook example of "respecting the office rather than the person".

[Eldan]

There is a flaw in that reasoning though.

You respect the man cause' he is King. sure law.
You respect the man cause he is a man.. that is neutral.
You don't care about the man. That is chaotic.

Not caring about anyone is not chaotic. That sounds neutral evil to me. Maybe chaotic evil. Certainly apathetic.

[Kato]

given those two possibilities, it is right to pick to defend the planet every time.

How do you know their lives are going to be happy? :smalltongue:
And if the planet is merely a base for an organization that plans to repeatedly attack the workplace of people merely doing their job for what the terrorists consider an evil regime? But OK, we know alderaan in all likelihood was just an ordinary planet. The question about the justification of Luke's mass murder when he blew up the Death Star remains. We could of course make the assumption that anyone who works for an evil empire must be evil but that seems simplistic to me. Or "they knew what they signed up for" but then we also give a pass to criminals hurting law enforcement officials and such.

[hamishspence]

But OK, we know alderaan in all likelihood was just an ordinary planet. The question about the justification of Luke's mass murder when he blew up the Death Star remains.

The Death Star, despite the name "space station" is a warship. Blowing up a warship, in a "time of civil war" can hardly be deemed murder. Nor is it anything like blowing up a planet.

Starkiller Base is a bit more "planet-like" (it even has trees on its surface) but it's still a superweapon. Blowing it up is akin to, during a nuclear war, blowing up a city that happens to have nuclear silos within - a city that has already fired some of them once.

Whereas blowing up the Death Star, is like blowing up a ballistic missile submarine - again, one that has already acted as a combatant and fired some of its missiles.

[Peelee]

Sure, blowing up a planet doesn't sound too nice but on a stellar scale it's akin to.. I just realized my comparison might be a little bit too close to real life politics. Let's just say it's not that destructive if there are millions of other planets.

If an argument against an entity being Evil relies on, "once there are enough lives, those lives become cheaper and less important and more ok to snuff out," I feel pretty safe in still painting said entity as Evil.

[Dr.Samurai]

The disconnect you are having, isn't that Dresden is an evil person, or borderline evil. He isn't. We know this, everyone around knows it, even his enemies know it.
You said he isn't outright evil. I thought you were implying that he's close to it. Am I wrong?

Inherently, yeah Dresden is a good person. Not in an alignment sense. The problem is that he doesn't see himself this way. This allows himself to LET himself do horrible acts. The thing is though, he KNOWS he is doing horrible acts, and doesn't try to lie to himself about it. What evil people do is do those acts, and then try to justify those actions.
I think some examples of these horrible things would be helpful. Because I can think of all the good things he has done, but thinking of "horrible" things that would pull him away from the good alignment is harder.

Yes, he killed of a lot of horrible monsters. He didn't do it for good reasons. He didn't do it out of any sense of altruism. He did it cause they wronged him.
He did it for multiple reasons because he is a character. Just because it is his daughter doesn't mean he can't be altruistic. The guy gives his own life, as revealed in Ghost Story, to save her. That's altruism. He felt forced to do this in part because he got paralyzed climbing a ladder to save his neighbors from a burning building. That's altruism.

So was it personal for him that they went after his daughter? Yeah, it was. But were the actions he took after that altruistic? Yeah, I would argue they were. And I would argue that he didn't have to kill Susan on the altar with the sacrificial knife, but he knew that doing so would destroy the Red Court and alleviate an unimaginable amount of pain and suffering in the world, so he did.

He knows about all the horrible things in the world. He doesn't do anything about them, until they do something to him first.
The books are about a private detective, not a god or superman. Dresden goes above and beyond to help people and do the right thing. But no, he doesn't go out and try to fix all of the world's problems by himself for no reason. I don't think that's what defines "good".

There is a flaw in that reasoning though.

You respect the man cause' he is King. sure law.
You respect the man cause he is a man.. that is neutral.
You don't care about the man. That is chaotic.
I think a chaotic person can respect a station. I can easily see someone like that bowing to a king or showing respect. It's when you're expected to do something because of the law, or an authority, or because of societal norms that you might start to see the divide in alignments. A chaotic person might be more inclined to say "yeah, no thanks" and go their own way.

[Reddish Mage]

I think a chaotic person can respect a station. I can easily see someone like that bowing to a king or showing respect. It's when you're expected to do something because of the law, or an authority, or because of societal norms that you might start to see the divide in alignments. A chaotic person might be more inclined to say "yeah, no thanks" and go their own way.

You are absolutely right, in terms of how Chaotic people have been depicted in D&D. They may respect authority, but do so for personal reasons. Chaotic people are supposed to act on their own moral compass and not because of laws, authorities, or societal norms.

Actually, Chaotic types often scrupulously keep to rules, codes, and norms in official D&D materials. Their "chaotic"-ness may come from the fact that the rules they follow are not mainstream or socially accepted. Hamishspence more than me can give examples of this.

One who reads the chaotic alignment strictly might expect that chaotic characters shouldn't adhere to brushing their teeth or arriving on-time to social engagements. It seems that the expectation is for chaotic characters to adhere to being chaotic in important moral contexts, not trivial everyday contexts.

Being Chaotic might be like being Evil as well. A person who behaves like a good person most of the time, but occasionally murders or something is evil.

Similarly, almost all people follow most rules and most norms most of the time. Just because a person is described as Chaotic would you expect them to drive the wrong way on the road, eat with the wrong utensils and make personal calls during a meeting?


That is the joke of that poster, dude. That Batman's different writers have written him in such different ways that you can find runs that write him as basically every alignment.

Course, fans do have their own ideas. Hence wht Fri said - for example, Miller's Batman is memefied to not actually BE Batman, but a hobo in a Batman suit, because the way he acts is straight up Evil, and fans are like "um, I'm pretty sure Batman is not supposed to be like this". But the (actually pretty long!) run with Batman being more or less a pro-totalitarianism fascist ****head absolutely exists. Hence the poster.

I used the poster to make a point about the limitations of what I said on fictional alignments, and people disagreed with it so I responded to the disagreement.



Honestly, I feel the lawful/chaotic distinction is way easier than the good/evil one if you don't want to stick to mere personal opinion. Of course there are a few people who consider themselves evil but for the majority they have some kind of reasoning why their actions are good, so in their own eyes they are good. Of course their opponents think differently but who are we to judge which side is correct? To go with an old popular argument : is the established government defending itself against terrorists good or is it the rebel alliance fighting the evil empire?

I disagree. There are established contexts of good and evil behavior in fiction with a ton of discussion about it. There may be some leeway but greater majority of the time you know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

Law and Chaos are ill defined as a separate moral axis from good and evil. Historically, "Lawfulness" is identified with goodness (in Plato as well as in Kant to give just two prominent examples). Also, I've seen enough examples of that make a mess of the two concepts. I’ve seen examples of "Chaos," such as a Barbarian tribe that rigidly adheres to its traditions, rituals, and taboos, and examples of "Law" that includes authorities that think whatever they decide is the law regardless of whether it violates established rules. The terms can certainly be used in very odd ways.

[Lord Raziere]

How do you know their lives are going to be happy? :smalltongue:
And if the planet is merely a base for an organization that plans to repeatedly attack the workplace of people merely doing their job for what the terrorists consider an evil regime? But OK, we know alderaan in all likelihood was just an ordinary planet. The question about the justification of Luke's mass murder when he blew up the Death Star remains. We could of course make the assumption that anyone who works for an evil empire must be evil but that seems simplistic to me. Or "they knew what they signed up for" but then we also give a pass to criminals hurting law enforcement officials and such.

Well if you don't know where the base is on the planet, and don't actually seem to know whether or not there is actually a base on the planet, you don't actually know whether or not its worth to blow it up, now do you? therefore the safest assumption is that there is no base, because you can't assume that there is. can't destroy it. and if you do know that its there, you might as well search for it and locate it. again, no point to blow it up, once you know the location you can deploy something more reasonable to get rid of it.

while destroying something like the death Star is preventing far more deaths than it causes. a random planet with a rebel base has no proof that it will cause the death of planets if its allowed to live. a death Star has intent to destroy behind it and could do repeatedly, while a police officer has entirely different intent of their job. intention matters, and intending to blow up planets is not the same as intending to enforce the law.

blowing up planets is simply incompetence writ large. its admittance that they can't take the time to properly scout things out, with a disproportionate response that only terrifies everyone and only gives people more reason to oppose the regime. a regime whose response to such opposition is to blow up anyone even vaguely connected to them, seems like exactly the kind of regime that can't be considered good at all, because good would make sure unnecessary deaths would be prevented, and blowing up a planet is highly unnecessary in the extreme.

I mean let us take a look at Warhammer 40,000, the place where the Imperium makes Exterminatus a routine thing. A universe of eternal war, and even they don't exterminatus every planet simply some heretics might be on it. they send the Inquisition to investigate, to take care of the threat before it grows too big, and if that fails they send the Imperial Guard to fight a war for it and Space Marines to help finish up. if the Inquisitor is in good judgement, they only exterminatus when its clear the planet is lost anyways- such as when Tyranids come and starting the entire thing. its lost anyways, might as well make sure the Tyranids starve.

But here is the thing: not every person capable of exterminatus has good judgement. if you can do it, why not someone else? and if an inquisitor drops an exterminatus because there might be some heretics on the planet, then the whole Imperium might as well bomb every single planet from Terra to the farthest reaches of the galaxy just to be sure. just because someone has official sanction doesn't mean do anything for good reason or have good judgement. it just means they have official sanction from equally imperfect beings who with equally imperfect judgement. therefore it is better to not destroy planets, simply because you cannot guarantee quality judgement of planetary destruction.

I mean if someone goes around destroying planets simply because they feel like its fun as well feel threatened by anyone who makes a disparaging remark towards them or whatever, its not really good at all, now is it? and its not as if that big galactic regime didn't come into existence without a few exterminatuses to create it in the first place, now does it? what justification is there then?

and then there is the fact that every planet is a home to somebody, and if you wouldn't destroy your own home, then you shouldn't destroy somebody elses. I would not destroy I care about, therefore I cannot make the decision of destroying everyone that someone else cares about, I'm not better than that person, that decision is not mine to make, and who knows? perhaps simply going down to the planet and giving out free food to the inhabitants is better, simply because now I've shown that I care for them and thus gives the terrorists pause, and makes them have to make a decision: either they try to blow up the planet to take out me, thus dooming the people on the planet, or they attack me on non-planetary terms thus hurting their own position by attacking someone who gave innocent people free food, or they simply run from the planet, which tells me they are neither willing to risk innocents or use the exterminatus weapons themselves to win.

Thus I judge and see the terrorists true intentions from such an act, and of course, in the former two scenarios where they attack in some manner, I can always lay a trap so that their attempts end in failure regardless. After all if they are willing to destroy a planet and I'm not, then I win both morally and strategically as long as I'm prepared. and if they aren't willing to risk the death of innocents, perhaps they aren't such a threat after all, and there is room for peace. of course if they do attack innocents at all, I am perfectly within my rights to kill them in defense of the people I gave food to.

Sure there is a measure of risk. but nothing is truly learned without taking some risks in life, now is there?

[hamishspence]

Actually, Chaotic types often scrupulously keep to rules, codes, and norms in official D&D materials. Their "chaotic"-ness may come from the fact that the rules they follow are not mainstream or socially accepted. Hamishspence more than me can give examples of this.

Examples:


Deities & Demigods (3.0) : CG deity Apollo: "He has a very low opinion of thieves and those who make their living dishonestly (it is said that no falsehood has ever passed his lips.)"

Faiths & Pantheons (3.0): CN deity Tempus: "Mighty and honourable in battle and a strong and robust deity, Tempus answers only to his own warrior's code and pursues no long-lasting alliances"
"Clerics of the war deity are charged to keep warfare a thing of rules, respected reputation, and professional behaviour, minimising uncontrolled bloodshed and working to eradicate funding that extends beyond single dispute or set of foes"

Dragon Magazine Compendium (3.5): Chaotic-subtype outsiders - Diaboli: "Despite their chaotic natures, diaboli strongly believe in traditions and ancient mores that continue to maintain their societies. Along with these strong and repeatedly proven customs, diaboli hold together their otherwise free-willed societies with a mixture of traditions, taboos, customs, and a strong sense of fair play."

Tome of Magic (3.5): (usually CN shadow genies - khayal): "The khayal penchant for deception does not extend to their own race. A khayal thinks nothing of deceiving a human, an elf, or a member of one of the other genie races, but he never lies to another khayal."

[Reddish Mage]

Examples:


Deities & Demigods (3.0) : CG deity Apollo: "He has a very low opinion of thieves and those who make their living dishonestly (it is said that no falsehood has ever passed his lips.)"

Faiths & Pantheons (3.0): CN deity Tempus: "Mighty and honourable in battle and a strong and robust deity, Tempus answers only to his own warrior's code and pursues no long-lasting alliances"
"Clerics of the war deity are charged to keep warfare a thing of rules, respected reputation, and professional behaviour, minimising uncontrolled bloodshed and working to eradicate funding that extends beyond single dispute or set of foes"

Dragon Magazine Compendium (3.5): Chaotic-subtype outsiders - Diaboli: "Despite their chaotic natures, diabolical strongly believe in traditions and ancient mores that continue to maintain their societies. Along with these strong and repeatedly proven customs, diabolical hold together their otherwise free-willed societies with a mixture of traditions, taboos, customs, and a strong sense of fair play."

Tome of Magic (3.5): (usually CN shadow genies - khayal): "The khayal penchant for deception does not extend to their own race. A khayal thinks nothing of deceiving a human, an elf, or a member of one of the other genie races, but he never lies to another khayal."

I need to save these examples. It raises questions for me about whether there is any integrity to the Law/Chaos distinction. It seems like Tempus and his clerics should outright be described as lawful since they are dedicated to setting up and enforcing rules for warfare, limiting conflict, and introducing a sense of professionalism, while the diabolical are only free-wheeling in ways that don’t threaten the structure of society. In other words the diabolical act in a way that is completely consistent with being Lawful.

I’m less disturbed by have a singular strict rule against something relatively minor like falsehoods or deceptions but having strict inflexible rules sounds like the very definition of Lawful.

While there are definite lawful and chaotic traits it seems up to individual authors what is controlling. The definition of chaotic, in particular, seems to be as chaotic as the thing it is attempting to define.

What is scary is how often one could convincingly switch alignments from Law to Chaos and vice-versa simply by changing the words to the effect of “this is what makes the character lawful chaotic.”

[hamishspence]

Diaboli have no government at all - their societies are basically benevolent anarchies.

[GloatingSwine]

I need to save these examples. It raises questions for me about whether there is any integrity to the Law/Chaos distinction.

It's almost like the names and descriptions are a post facto descriptor for an otherwise arbitrary pair of axes to generate opposition...

[Reddish Mage]

It's almost like the names and descriptions are a post facto descriptor for an otherwise arbitrary pair of axes to generate opposition...

That a lot of fancy words that mean nothing here. If the names were post facto (after the fact) they could have aligned the descriptions better to characters and behavior being described.

The axes are not arbitrary either. There was some trendy fantasy fiction at the time where the major conflict was set between Law and Chaos. Gygax just decided to mix together Law and Chaos alongside Good and Evil to create a two axes system of morality. The particular poles were set by mashing up popular fantasy. That mash up and remix of fantasy themes is essential to D&D.

[GloatingSwine]

The axes are not arbitrary either. There was some trendy fantasy fiction at the time where the major conflict was set between Law and Chaos. Gygax just decided to mix together Law and Chaos alongside Good and Evil to create a two axes system of morality. The particular poles were set by mashing up popular fantasy. That mash up and remix of fantasy themes is essential to D&D.

The fact they nicked law and chaos off Moorcock and his ilk doesn't mean it wasn't arbitrary.

Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil have never meant in D&D what most people understand by them because they're so broad they encompass everything including their polar opposites (as seen in hamishspence's various chaotic but rules oriented entities), they're arbitrary labels for a set of conflict axes.

[S@tanicoaldo]

.
Since they were under 1e AD&D rules, post Unearthed Arcana (which I read in the store, didn't like, and pretty much was the end of my buying D&D stuff), the Barbarian would have to be Chaotic (something), so probably Chaotic Good (if UA matches the Barbarian class from The Dragon article), the Thief would have to be (something) Neutral, Neutral (sometimg), or (somethimg) Evil, so probably Neutral Good, the Ranger would have to be (something) Good, and the Monk would have to be (Lawful) something, I don't remember the rules for Cavalier, and the Magic-User could be any alignment under the rules (weird how I still remember the class alignment restrictions decades after I played AD&D).

I was already a teenager (15 to 17 years old) during the shows run, and didn't watch all of it, or much Saturday morning cartoons at all during that time (unlike the earlier Thundar the Barbarian which I watched avidly).

But I'd say one Chaotic Good Barbarian, and the rest Lawful or Neutral Good.

Eric the knight cavalier sounds more like a True neutral.

[Frozen_Feet]

Law and Chaos don't mean "rules-oriented" and "non-rules oriented". As clearly explained in AD&D, they mean group-oriented and individual-oriented.

So for example, a Chaotic warrior deity may demand strict adherence to rules of combat, provided those rules are about individual prowess, honor, and freedom. By contrast, a Lawful warrior deity would place emphasis on obedience to authority, funtionality as a group and discipline.

So if a person's "rule-oriented" behaviour constantly puts them at odds with other people around them and they consistently choose to operate alone rather than adhere to the will of a group, chances are they are Chaotic.

[Reddish Mage]

The fact they nicked law and chaos off Moorcock and his ilk doesn't mean it wasn't arbitrary.

Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil have never meant in D&D what most people understand by them because they're so broad they encompass everything including their polar opposites (as seen in hamishspence's various chaotic but rules oriented entities), they're arbitrary labels for a set of conflict axes.

Yes the term arbitrary, in the context you are using, means "without a reasonable basis" or else I don't know what you mean by the term. If Gygax is ripping it from popular fantasy for a fantasy RPG, that seems like a reasonable basis to me.

Also you want to throw in Good and Evil in with your analysis of Law and Chaos and say that both oppositions are defined in ways that are so vague anything could be put at one pole or the other.

That's going way too far. I am saying that the two are defined very vaguely, sometimes they contradictorily, and sometimes you see head-scratchers of things put on one pole that ought to be on the other.

What I am hearing from you is that the terms are essentially meaningless. The authors are drawing circles around a couple of groups and giving those groups labels that are about as meaningful as if they gave them labels A, B, C, and D and decided that A and B are incompatible and C and D are incompatible.



Law and Chaos don't mean "rules-oriented" and "non-rules oriented". As clearly explained in AD&D, they mean group-oriented and individual-oriented.

So for example, a Chaotic warrior deity may demand strict adherence to rules of combat, provided those rules are about individual prowess, honor, and freedom. By contrast, a Lawful warrior deity would place emphasis on obedience to authority, funtionality as a group and discipline.

So if a person's "rule-oriented" behaviour constantly puts them at odds with other people around them and they consistently choose to operate alone rather than adhere to the will of a group, chances are they are Chaotic.

I don't know what "AD&D" you are referring to. I'm using alignment as it was referred to in the 3.5 PHB and similarly as its described in the SRD (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules).


Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Law Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos 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.

That description does not make group-oriented behavior the dominant trait. If it did Diaboli would be lawful because their anarchist society is clearly group oriented.

[Frozen_Feet]

1st Edition AD&D, which explained the whole Alignment thing much better than d20 versions of the game.

[GloatingSwine]

What I am hearing from you is that the terms are essentially meaningless. The authors are drawing circles around a couple of groups and giving those groups labels that are about as meaningful as if they gave them labels A, B, C, and D and decided that A and B are incompatible and C and D are incompatible.


Yes.

That is exactly what they are.

You even prove that when you and Frozen_Feet have mutually incompatible versions of the same terms which are both supported by the rules.

The names used by D&D for alignment are disassociated from the commonly understood meanings of the words they are named for. (Even really for good and evil, that's the root of most of the "make the paladin fall" false dilemmas, because the rules for "good" don't clearly align with the common understanding of the moral conception.)

[Frozen_Feet]

You even prove that when you and Frozen_Feet have mutually incompatible versions of the same terms which are both supported by the rules.


Supported by rules of different games. That kind of "mutual incompatibility" doesn't prove meaninglessness of any kind of terminology, it only proves that 1st Edition had a different meaning for the same term as Pathfinder. (It's arguable whether the two even are mutually incompatible, as it's right there in PFSRD quotes that Law still places emphasis on functionality as a group and Chaos still places emphasis on individual liberty. Or what the Hell do you think "a society where people can depend on each other" and "unfettered personal freedom" actually mean?)

[GloatingSwine]

Supported by rules of different games. That kind of "mutual incompatibility" doesn't prove meaninglessness of any kind of terminology,

It absolutely proves that they are arbitrary terms nothing to do with the meanings of the words, because two different games can use the same words to mean quite different things.

[Reddish Mage]

Yes.

That is exactly what they are.

You even prove that when you and Frozen_Feet have mutually incompatible versions of the same terms which are both supported by the rules.

The names used by D&D for alignment are disassociated from the commonly understood meanings of the words they are named for. (Even really for good and evil, that's the root of most of the "make the paladin fall" false dilemmas, because the rules for "good" don't clearly align with the common understanding of the moral conception.)

1. The words still have meaning in D&D beyond arbitrary labels placed in opposition to one another in a helter skelter fashion. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos all mean things that are at least somewhat akin to the popular notion fo those words.

The way you describe it, these words are essentially meaningless. There is no cross-contextual consistency in regards to what's one or the other. I think you have to get into pretty extreme terrorory to start stripping words of having any meaning.

2. You haven't supported your contention. Even if the words differ from the common meaning doesn't strip them of any meaning.

3. You seem to place a lot of faith of what the "common meaning" is of these words.

In particular you claim that the common meaning would save us from the "make the Paladin fall dilemmas." I doubt it. In real life there are a fair share of moral dilemmas such as the infamous trolley problem (although I've seen much more true to life scenarios involving board rooms and employee decisions) that reinforce that there isn't a decision that feels right.

If the common meaning was so robust we could just chuck the D&D meanings (if there is any meaning to the words) and go with whatever those common meanings are for gaming. I suppose since they are so common you could point me to the non-controversial sources that say what the words actually mean.

[Frozen_Feet]

It absolutely proves that they are arbitrary terms nothing to do with the meanings of the words, because two different games can use the same words to mean quite different things.
Only insofar as all words are fundamentally arbitrary in meaning, being that there is no universal language and words are just noises we link to concepts via association. I could, for example, prove the same point about Finnish and Japanese languages by comparing homophones across them.

In practice, notions of Law and Chaos in both games are based on common notions of what those words mean, the difference is that the game terms have a particular interpretation that's codified in rule books. They share this trait with thousands of other words, including "class", "race", "spell", "skill", "to hit" etc.. I could find you examples of RPGs which have different definitions of "to hit" with far greater degree of "mutual incompatibility" than there is for Alignment here.

[2D8HP]

.
Law, Chaos....


Law and Chaos....


We're defining terms now?

Lovely, my very first post to this Forum was to a "Lawful Good done right?" thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=20244484#post20244484)

Here's a shorter version of the history I usually do when the subject comes up:

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

Uh, just read the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1)

Or..., as is traditional:
So, the "rules" on alignment and everything else are up to each individual table:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "..The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play...."


AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."


D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "...As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual..."



A History of "Alignment" in Dungeons & Dragons

Part One: The War between Law & Chaos

For the Dungeons & Dragons game, Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.
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 in the Elric and Corum novels, 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.

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 usual preference.

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."


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

So it was clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

But the turning of a heavily house ruled Chainmail into what we now call a "role-playing game", brought character behavior in the mix:

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"

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"!

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), and other than hints that "Law" Clerics, and "Chaos" Clerics were in conflict, there wasn't much info on what was meant until 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).

I'm gonna stress that I didn't know Anderson's novel when I first played D&D in the very late 1970's, and I'd bet that most other players didn't either, but knowledge of Moorcock's Elric was far more common then, from comic books!:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76VaPmTHxI/AAAAAAAAB90/jp_QEn8jKSg/s320/conanelric1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76i4WQ-17I/AAAAAAAAB-E/xdEuV-lr0as/s320/conanelric2-1.jpg

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.

Invisible Library [/I] 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.].
[B]
Part Two: Enter Good & Evil

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


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

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

- Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg


So the article added the "good and evil axis", but 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" was the side of humanity, and "Chaos" was on the side of the supernatural in Anderson and early Moorcock, and very early D&D, but 'Good" and "Evil" complicate matters.

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" didn'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)!

But oD&D was just "guidelines", nothing was "official" until Advanced Dungeons & Dragons which was a completely different game!
"No royalties for you Arneson! Mine all Mine! Bwahahaha!
Wait, what's that Blume?"
:biggrin:

Part Three: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Fitting as a "bridge" between oD&D, and AD&D, the 1977 "Basic Set" had a "5 point Alignment system" (Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Neutral), but the 1978 Players Handbook had the full "nine-points" that we know today.
CHARACTER ALIGNMENT

Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite
unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.
https://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-10-at-4-43-37-pm.png
So...


ALIGNMENT

After generating the abilities of your character, selecting his or her race, and deciding upon a class, it is necessary to determine the alignment of the character. It is possible that the selection of the class your character will profess has predetermined alignment: a druid is neutral, a paladin is lawful good, a thief can be neutral or evil, an assassin is always evil. Yet, except for druids and paladins, such restrictions still leave latitude - the thief can be lawful neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil, chaotic neutral, neutral, or even neutral good; and the assassin has nearly as many choices. The alignments possible for characters are described below.

Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.

Chaotic Good: While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great.
By promoting the gods of chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek to spread their values throughout the world.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.
Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.

Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned.
By adhering to stringent discipline, those of
lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world -and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary
considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are
disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.

Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in
alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

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

Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its "true" neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable
that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift.of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.

Anyway, the '79 DMG recommended graphing a PC's Alignment, and if they slipped into a new one they'd lose one level of experience, "If the alignment change is involuntary (such as caused by a powerful magic, a curse etc.), then the character can regain all of the losses (level, hit die, etc.) upon returning to his or her former alignment as soon as possible and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment - and sacrificing treasure which has a value of not less than 10,000 g.p. per level of experience of the character."

That'll teach those pesky PC's not to stray!

:amused:

Oh and "Until the character has again achieved his or her former level of experience held prior to change of alignment, he or she will not be able to converse in the former alignment's tongue nor will anything but the rudest signalling be possible in the new alignment language."


1e AD&D DM's were always supplied with pizza with the correct toppings!

:wink:

(Not really, I have no memory of those rules ever being used).

Wisely the 1981 "Basic rules" went back to Law/Neutral/Chaos, which was retained in the Alignment
An alignment is a code of behavior or way of
life which guides the actions and thoughts of characters and monsters. There are three alignments in the D&D® game: Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. Players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters. A player does not have to tell other players what alignment he or she has picked, but must tell the Dungeon Master. Most Lawful characters will reveal their align-ments if asked. When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other PCs.
Alignments give characters guidelines,to live by. They are not absolute rules: characters will try to follow their alignment guidelines, but may not always be successful. To better understand the philosophies behind them, let's define the three alignments.
Law (or Lawful)
Law is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws that are fair, keep promises, and care for all living things.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good
Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as "good" behavior.
Chaos (or Chaotic)
Chaos is the opposite of Law. It is the belief
that life is random and that chance and luck rule the world. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the
most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They have strong belief in the power of luck. They cannot always be trusted. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil." Each individual player must decide if his Chaotic character is closer to a mean, selfish "evil" personality or merely a happy-go-lucky, unpredictable personality.
Neutrality (or Neutral)
Neutrality is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in per-
sonal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither).
Alignment Behavior
Take this situation as an example: A group of player characters is attacked by a large number of monsters. Escape is not possible unless the monsters are slowed down.
A Lawful character will fight to protect the
group, regardless of the danger. The character will not run away unless the whole group does so or is otherwise safe.
A Neutral character will fight to protect the
group as long as it is reasonably safe to do so. If the danger is too great, the character will try to save himself, even at the expense of the rest of the party.
A Chaotic character might fight the monsters or he might run away immediately—Chaotics are, as always, unpredictable. The character may not even care what happened to the rest of the party.
Playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score indicates, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
Alignment Languages
Each alignment has a secret language of passwords, hand signals, and other body motions.
Player characters and intelligent monsters always know their alignment languages. They will also recognize when another alignment language is being spoken, but will not understand it. Alignment languages have no written form. A character may not learn a different alignment language unless he changes alignments. In such a case, the character forgets the old alignment language and starts using the new one immediately....

Unfortunately 'Law' was "usually "Good"', and 'Chaos' was "usually Evil", but "not always".

I still see the point of Alignments in the Monster Manual, but now that D&D has dropped ""Alignment Languages", I'm not sure what the point is of players writing one on their character record sheets, as "Ideals", "Flaws", "Bonds", etc. seem to replace "Alignment" as a role-playing aide.

[Reddish Mage]

.
We're defining terms now?

Lovely, my very first post to this Forum was to a "Lawful Good done right?" thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=20244484#post20244484)

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" didn'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)!

CHARACTER ALIGNMENT

Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite
unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.
https://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-10-at-4-43-37-pm.png
So...

Anyway, the '79 DMG recommended graphing a PC's Alignment, and if they slipped into a new one they'd lose one level of experience, "If the alignment change is involuntary (such as caused by a powerful magic, a curse etc.), then the character can regain all of the losses (level, hit die, etc.) upon returning to his or her former alignment as soon as possible and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment - and sacrificing treasure which has a value of not less than 10,000 g.p. per level of experience of the character."

That'll teach those pesky PC's not to stray!

:amused:

Oh and "Until the character has again achieved his or her former level of experience held prior to change of alignment, he or she will not be able to converse in the former alignment's tongue nor will anything but the rudest signalling be possible in the new alignment language."

[/SPOILER]

I still see the point of Alignments in the Monster Manual, but now that D&D has dropped ""Alignment Languages", I'm not sure what the point is of players writing one on their character record sheets, as "Ideals", "Flaws", "Bonds", etc. seem to replace "Alignment" as a role-playing aide.[/SPOILER]

While I commend your post for giving us a rundown of the early history, you cut things off well before 3rd edition and make no mention of the developments of the last three decades.

That’s only fitting, since your point seems to be either that Alignment should be discarded entirely or left to the DM solely to determine game effects.

I suppose that is a fine thing to argue, although its a bit off topic in a thread that is supposed be be about fictional characters alignments.

The history shows that alignment evolved quite a bit in the 1970’s and going into 2018 would just show it continues to evolve.

Alignment has always been a part of D&D gaming though, and the notion has sparked quite a bit of interesting play such as Planescape and some great supplement adventures. Without Alignment D&D may well lose its feel and instead seem like a generic RPG like any one of the dozens it spawned.

Moreover, in terms of this discussion it’s not clear what point you are making. We were talking about whether terms like Law/Chaos/Good/Evil have any meaning at all. You note its origins as a way to put pieces to various sides of a Chainmail game (no role play just table top war simulation).

I get the intimation that it never really changed from being a way to put pieces on different sides but it also became a straightjacket for players that want to behave unpredictably. However, if it was ever designed to discourage behavior, that implies there was a set of behavior that is appropriate for an alignment.

What alignment was does not determine what it can be. No one is arguing that alignment discussions make for great philosophical and ethical explorations (well may someone would). It can be very vague.

However, we’re now on a kick that appears completely dismissive of the topic of alignment itself and accepting that would do nothing except to shutdown any alignment-related discussion ever.

Which is a shame given how much history it has with the game.

[2D8HP]

While....

....with the game.


Your assesment and criticisms of my "Alignment History" post are spot on @Reddish Mage.

While it my not look it (I hope), it was written pretty stream-of-conscience, and I ran out of steam and lost the point (and also ignored most post 1970's rules, and all post '91 rules).

I suppose a synopsis could be:


"The Alignment definitions have changed over time"


Unspoken was


"Let's not define the terms and instead just use them to label characters"


Which when stated seems silly.

Nevertheless I have a request for the Forum:

My favorite novel of the 21st century is Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, but except for "The Gentleman with the Thistle-down Hair", who despite an adherence to contracts I woulf label "Chaotic Evil", I'm stumped, especially for thr title characters.

[Aka-chan]

My favorite novel of the 21st century is Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, but except for "The Gentleman with the Thistle-down Hair", who despite an adherence to contracts I woulf label "Chaotic Evil", I'm stumped, especially for thr title characters.


I love that novel as well! The BBC's miniseries adaptation is pretty good, too.

I would definitely put the Gentleman as some sort of Evil, but the whole thing about "will adhere to the letter of any agreement made, but you better be darn sure you know exactly how each word of that agreement is being interpreted, or you're going to be screwed" seems like classic Lawful Evil. OTOH, his association with madness (e.g. Strange taking the tincture of madness to summon him; the mad King George being able to see him when other humans can't) points towards Chaos. So I'm not sure where to put him on the Law-Chaos axis.

Norrell's hoarding of knowledge and insisting that magic be conducted according to certain rules of propriety points strongly towards a Lawful alignment, IMO.

[2D8HP]

....Norrell's hoarding of knowledge and insisting that magic be conducted according to certain rules of propriety points strongly towards a Lawful alignment, IMO.


I definitely agree that Norell counts as Lawful, it's where to place him on the Good-Neutral-Evil axis that puzzles me.

Oh, and thanks for the tip on the BBC series, I got the DVD from the Library, but I couldn't entice my wife or my son to watch it with me, so I didn't either. Maybe I'll watch it on my own sometime.

:smile:

[BWR]

Norell is Neutral. He is self-absorbed, aloof and almost entirely unconcerned with the state of other people. However, he does not bear them any ill will and there is very little he does that directly harms or exploits them - the only thing I can think of off-hand (it being years since I read the book) is stealing Strange's book from the world.

[Kato]

Sorry, been not looking in here for a while...

The Death Star, despite the name "space station" is a warship. Blowing up a warship, in a "time of civil war" can hardly be deemed murder. Nor is it anything like blowing up a planet.

Starkiller Base is a bit more "planet-like" (it even has trees on its surface) but it's still a superweapon. Blowing it up is akin to, during a nuclear war, blowing up a city that happens to have nuclear silos within - a city that has already fired some of them once.

Whereas blowing up the Death Star, is like blowing up a ballistic missile submarine - again, one that has already acted as a combatant and fired some of its missiles.

I agree with your points but looking at it from a galactic scale, the argument can not quite as well but reasonably well turned around for Alderaan. It's a planet that not only serves as a base for rebels, it's government has aligned itself with the enemy. An enemy who has already conducted multiple attacks on imperial facilities and killed multiple people. Yes, blowing up a planet is still not quite the same as thoroughly bombing a city but it's not entirely different. (of course this opens up the discussion on bombing cities but since you allowed it in respect to Starkiller base the comparison seems legitimate to me)


But let's take a step back from the Star Wars example and look at different things. There are far more examples where the distinction between lawful and chaotic is clear cut but good and evil is not.
Vigilante crime fighting is chaotic (or maybe neutral, depending on where you draw the line) , and debatable if morally justified. (vigilante justice tends to be on the more evil end)

... And now I realize listing things that are legal but (possibly) evil almost inevitably brings us to subjects better not discussed because forum rules. Damn you real world politics..

My point is, I find it quite easy to say whether an action follows the law or not but harder to say if something is absolutely good / evil.

[Reddish Mage]

But let's take a step back from the Star Wars example and look at different things. There are far more examples where the distinction between lawful and chaotic is clear cut but good and evil is not.
Vigilante crime fighting is chaotic (or maybe neutral, depending on where you draw the line) , and debatable if morally justified. (vigilante justice tends to be on the more evil end)

... And now I realize listing things that are legal but (possibly) evil almost inevitably brings us to subjects better not discussed because forum rules. Damn you real world politics..

My point is, I find it quite easy to say whether an action follows the law or not but harder to say if something is absolutely good / evil.

Your assuming that something being legal and something being “lawful” is synonymous. In legal terms they are more or less (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/lawful) but in D&D terms?

Of course what’s legal isn’t entirely clear all the time, but the decision-making process to determine what’s legal is a lot better established than what’s ethical.

However, D&D specifically does not equate being “lawful” with “always following the law.” Official D&D supplements have claimed that various vigilantes (notably Batman) are lawful. I don’t claim its official but I recall Judge Dredd being brought in as an example of “lawful.” In RL vigilantes (including crimes committed by officials in fufilling their duties) tend to be treated different and reacted to differently by the players in the legal system. D&D material sometimes have lawful authorities up to all sorts deviations for particular purposes.

The argument is out there somewhere that using chaotic means to achieve lawful ends is neutral.

We had a long discussions some time ago about vigilantism and whether it was lawful or chaotic and the clear answer was “its arguable.”

Lawful characters may or may not obey specific laws or set of laws. They may think themselves above certain laws or claim extra-terrortorial jurisdiction to pursue their aims. Miko in OOTS essentially claims unlimited jurisdiction and doesn’t feel bound by any limitations.

Official supplements have allowed spies, assassins, and other instruments of governments that inherently break other nations laws to be lawful.

As an example that runs in the same direction of vigilantism being unlawful I once argued that adventurers and adventuring was an inherently chaotic activity (in the way “chaotic” is commonly used not as specifically applies to D&D) and caught a lot of flack for that. Apparently people think that vigorously seeking out mayhem is a perfectly non-chaotic.

This despite the fact that your stereotypical adventuring group tends to be extremely disruptive. They also tend to be trouble magnets and by nature do not have a regular place in the social structure.

So vigalantism can be lawful alongside solving problems with rag-tag ensembles of social misfits. One really cannot define “lawful” with a single term such as “legal” or “socially-oriented” or “orderly conduct” without basically throwing out the rulebooks.

Apparently, the idea is to analyze each character individually and come to a characterization using a combination of the traits mentioned above. There’s a few other concepts thrown in the mix to determine lawful such as the importance of rules, customs, traditions, and regularity. The Giant has said he looks at people’s internal motivations for what they do (which is why Therkla is neutral although she tends to commit evil acts and works for and with evil entities).

Once you get rid of a single simple concept being the test for law or chaos, its a lot easier to make a judgment on the good evil scale simply because its quite a familiar label to put on characters. The law-chaos scale is almost never seen these days outside of D&D.

[Keltest]

I agree with your points but looking at it from a galactic scale, the argument can not quite as well but reasonably well turned around for Alderaan. It's a planet that not only serves as a base for rebels, it's government has aligned itself with the enemy. An enemy who has already conducted multiple attacks on imperial facilities and killed multiple people. Yes, blowing up a planet is still not quite the same as thoroughly bombing a city but it's not entirely different. (of course this opens up the discussion on bombing cities but since you allowed it in respect to Starkiller base the comparison seems legitimate to me)

Alderaan isn't a rebel base though. As leia mentioned, its actually heavily de-militarized, and Tarkin goes so far as to contrast Alderaan with a military target that they could be pointing the Death Star at instead. Its pretty definitely a purely civilian target that sympathizes with one side, not a military target the way the Death Star was. To say nothing of the fact that even if there was a rebel base on planet, youre still causing wildly unnecessary collateral damage by destroying the planet.

[Ancient]

Sorry, been not looking in here for a while...


I agree with your points but looking at it from a galactic scale, the argument can not quite as well but reasonably well turned around for Alderaan. It's a planet that not only serves as a base for rebels, it's government has aligned itself with the enemy. An enemy who has already conducted multiple attacks on imperial facilities and killed multiple people. Yes, blowing up a planet is still not quite the same as thoroughly bombing a city but it's not entirely different. (of course this opens up the discussion on bombing cities but since you allowed it in respect to Starkiller base the comparison seems legitimate to me)


But let's take a step back from the Star Wars example and look at different things. There are far more examples where the distinction between lawful and chaotic is clear cut but good and evil is not.
Vigilante crime fighting is chaotic (or maybe neutral, depending on where you draw the line) , and debatable if morally justified. (vigilante justice tends to be on the more evil end)

... And now I realize listing things that are legal but (possibly) evil almost inevitably brings us to subjects better not discussed because forum rules. Damn you real world politics..

My point is, I find it quite easy to say whether an action follows the law or not but harder to say if something is absolutely good / evil.

That sort of logic would allow us to decimate Afghanistani villages and civilian population centers based on the fact that the Taliban sponsored terrorism. Military targets are one thing, civillian targets are something else. The Empire could have occupied the planet, removed the government, destroyed/dismantled military stockpiles, and imprisoned/executed terrorists as it found them, but "doing the whole planet", is a whole different level of atrocity, even if it is the only way to be sure.

[2D8HP]

Your assuming that....

...law-chaos scale is almost never seen these days outside of D&D.



Okay, I guess for some reason we are going to define terms.

I'm not going to touch "good" and "evil", but without looking them up (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=691.0) I'd define someone as "Aligned with Law", in D&D terms when they tend to follow a code or rules that can be consciously articulated with words, and they follow an authority, though that authority may not be a person or an institution and is instead a code of behavior such as The Pirates Code (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code)

Someone who, for example, never tells a falsehood, or never backs down from a fight, may or may not be "Lawful" (in D&D terms), but if they say that those are rules they live by, then they are being "Lawful" when they act according to those rules, wheras someone "Aligned with Chaos", follows their unarticulated conscience or whims, "What seems right", or "What I feel like".

To illustrate:

Spade: Well, if you get a good break, you'll be out of Tehachapi in 20 years and you can come back to me then. I hope they don't hang you, precious, by that sweet neck...Yes, angel, I'm gonna send you over. The chances are you'll get off with life. That means if you're a good girl, you'll be out in 20 years. I'll be waiting for you. If they hang you, I'll always remember you.

Brigid: Don't, Sam. Don't say it even in fun. Ha, ha, ha. Oh, I was frightened for a minute. I really thought...You do such wild and unpredictable things.

Spade: Don't be silly. You're taking the fall.

Brigid: You've been playing with me. Just pretending you care to trap me like this. You didn't care at all. You don't love me!

Spade: I won't play the sap for you!

Brigid: Oh you know it's not like that. You can't say that.

Spade: You ever fight square with me for half an hour at a stretch since I've known you?

Brigid: You know down deep in your heart and in spite of anything I've done I love you.

Spade: I don't care who loves who! I won't play the sap for you. I won't walk in Thursby's - and I don't know how many other's - footsteps. You killed Miles and you're going over for it

Brigid: How can you do this to me, Sam? Surely, Mr. Archer wasn't so much to you as...[crying]

Spade: When a man's partner's killed, he's supposed to do something about it. It doesn't make any difference what you thought of him, he was your partner, and you're supposed to do something about it. And it happens we're in the detective business. Well, when one of your organization gets killed, it's - it's bad business to let the killer get away with it. Bad all around. Bad for every detective everywhere.

Brigid: You don't expect me to think that these things you're saying are sufficient reasons for sending me to the...

Spade: [I]Wait'll I'm through. Then you can talk. I've no earthly reason to think I can trust you, and, if I do this and get away with it, you'll have something on me that you can use whenever you want to. Since I've got something on you, I couldn't be sure that you wouldn't put a hole in me some day. All those are on one side. Maybe some of them are unimportant - I won't argue about that - but look at the number of them. And what have we got on the other side? All we've got is that maybe you love me and maybe I love you.

Brigid: You know whether you love me or not.

Spade: Maybe I do. Well, I'll have some rotten nights after I've sent you over, but that will pass. If all I've said doesn't mean anything to you, then forget it and we'll make it just this: I won't because all of me wants to, regardless of consequences, and because you counted on that with me the same as you counted on that with all the others. Don't be too sure I'm as crooked as I'm supposed to be. That sort of reputation might be good business, bringing high-priced jobs and making it easier to deal with the enemy.....

By not shielding his lover, despite that:

"all of me wants to, regardless of consequences"

and instead insisting she face prosecution for the murder of his partner as:

"When a man's partner's killed, he's supposed to do something about it. It doesn't make any difference what you thought of him, he was your partner, and you're supposed to do something about it. And it happens we're in the detective business. Well, when one of your organization gets killed, it's - it's bad business to let the killer get away with it. Bad all around. Bad for every detective everywhere."

Shows that Sam Spade (if he's speaking true) is following a code instead of instinct, thus Lawful in this instance.

[Reddish Mage]

Okay, I guess for some reason we are going to define terms.

I'm not going to touch "good" and "evil", but without looking them up (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=691.0) I'd define someone as "Aligned with Law", in D&D terms when they tend to follow a code or rules that can be consciously articulated with words, and they follow an authority, though that authority may not be a person or an institution and is instead a code of behavior such as The Pirates Code (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code)

Someone who, for example, never tells a falsehood, or never backs down from a fight, may or may not be "Lawful" (in D&D terms), but if they say that those are rules they live by, then they are being "Lawful" when they act according to those rules, wheras someone "Aligned with Chaos", follows their unarticulated conscience or whims, "What seems right", or "What I feel like".

To illustrate:
Sam Spade (if he's speaking true) is following a code instead of instinct, thus Lawful in this instance.

Are you offering your own definition for discussion or claiming to capture the D&D definition? If its the later, I'm not sure the difference between a verbalized and non-verbalized code of ethics is what makes one Lawful as opposed to Chaotic.

I'm especially doubtful that Pirate's following the Pirate's code should be held up as an example of Lawful behavior.

The notion of of following one's own conscience and whim is explicitly attached to the Chaotic alignment (although also Neutral) but then so is rule aversion and freedom. Sam Spade articulated a principle of "never leave a dead partner unavenged" but he is hardly, in general, a person that follows a rigid code of conduct.

The playground has discussed Sam Spade in the a past (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136032-Sam-Spade-Phillip-Marlowe-Alignment). He's quite a bit underhanded. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=7559895&postcount=4)

I realize you are only trying to give an example of what a "lawful act" is, but if so, you might be making it a bit too easy. Basically, anyone that cares to gives reasons and articulate principles for what they are doing becomes lawful, regardless of whether those principles correspond to any orderly group, or if those principles really end up consistently guiding behavior.

[Kato]

Your assuming that something being legal and something being “lawful” is synonymous. In legal terms they are more or less (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/lawful) but in D&D terms?

Hm... to be honest, to me they were. And still, mostly, are, even after the discussion here. But I start to see the Problems.


Law and Chaos don't mean "rules-oriented" and "non-rules oriented". As clearly explained in AD&D, they mean group-oriented and individual-oriented.

Okay, I guess that seems pretty fitting most of the time, but it also goes well with the "law-abiding" and "law-ignoring" argument. After all laws are mostly group oriented, as decided by the people, while unlawful actions are aimed toward individual benefit. It's not perfect, but it seems to work... well enough, at least.


Sidenote: It's amazing this thread is 90% discussing the Terms, as opposed what the OP probably hoped for :smalltongue:



That sort of logic would allow us to decimate Afghanistani villages and civilian population centers based on the fact that the Taliban sponsored terrorism. Military targets are one thing, civillian targets are something else. The Empire could have occupied the planet, removed the government, destroyed/dismantled military stockpiles, and imprisoned/executed terrorists as it found them, but "doing the whole planet", is a whole different level of atrocity, even if it is the only way to be sure.

Well, thanks for jumping head first into exactly the kind of topic I avoided because it's forbidden by forum rules....

[Reddish Mage]

If you think that most lawful characters obey most laws most of the time, that’s probably true. Similarly, most lawful characters are group oriented (if only because that tendency is quite clear in the monster manual, although I’m not so sure if you took the adventurer characters).

You can, and should, add a few more characters to determine who is lawful. Most are honorable, avoid lying, and have a strong sense of justice.

I think there’s also a trend towards lawful characters following various sorts of rules and social mores, have regular patterns and generally behave in an orderly fashion.

The problem really comes when you try to take what is a vaguely defined set of priorities and say to be lawful means only one of them.

Its not true that you’ll even find that even most lawful characters in the supplements will always obey every law. I even recall coming across beings of “pure law” or exaggerated lawfulness (including magically induced lawfulness) who will attack chaotic beings on sight. There is never any suggestion that such beings care what local ordinances have to say about the subject.

From the discussion I have on this board I constantly imagine nightmarish DM and player fights, although I don’t know how many people with really reductive ideas of what “lawful” or some other alignment DM and really strictly adhere to them.