Alignment: Need for a clear definition, and how outsiders should be treated

[Xuincherguixe]

Originally I was going to write this as a reply to the 4th edition Demons/Devils thread, however it went off spiraling into a totally different tangent, so I decided to post this as a different thread.

I think that a clear definition of what alignment is is needed. Even if it is loose, there shouldn't be so many hard arguments. It is also acceptable in my mind that things like Law and Chaos can mean different things in different settings, but the metaphysical situation is too painful.

I'm not going to make any judgments on Law/Chaos, I just think it's important they are defined.


And of course where alignment goes, outsiders closely follow. But Outsiders can be confusing as well. In said thread, there was an argument about if Succubi make more sense as Devils or Demons. I don't want to have the argument here too, but I bring this up as an example of how hard the alignment questions are. The succubus debate is easily resolved enough if you make a couple rulings.

But Good Outsiders are even harder to figure out. Clear images about what they should be don't form well. The Devil/Demon divide works nicely. One is terrifying because it makes perfect sense, the other makes no sense what so ever and their very nature is counter to human reason. (Well that's one way of doing it at least). But it's hard to figure out where the lines between Chaotic Good and Lawful Good are. Again, because Law and Chaos are so poorly defined.


How I would do things, I would have a flat definition for outsiders and an open one. This means that in one system that you could have a scheming mastermind Demon, and in the other that is against their nature (they could still plan, but not with nearly the same level of intricacy). Alignment may or may not be linked with the traditional outsider types (depending on how one rules), and I might go so far as to drop the Outsider type completely.

I think that the Fae type can reasonably replace what the Chaotic Good type is right now. I can't even figure out where the difference is between the various goods are right now. But squeeze Fae in, and the metaphysics start falling into place. The line between Evil Fae and Demons is blurry as is, and a lot of the Chaotic Good outsiders are pretty Faeish. Angels can get into fights with pixies. The Neutral Outsiders which don't really fit in well can be absorbed into Angel/Devil/Fae/Demon groups, or become something else entirely if it doesn't make sense. (Modrons and Slaad are awesome).

Of course the problem here is that it would take a lot of work to change everything. Therefore I offer this advice instead. Treat the D&D cosmology the way it should. That it doesn't make any sense. Generally things are certain ways, but exceptions exist. Make individual rulings in the ways that are easiest for each of you. Be as consistent as you can.

There, now I've said all the stuff I feel like saying, though looking back I'm not quite sure what my point was. Take of it what you will.

[Dhavaer]

EVeryone has a different definition of Law and Chaos. Some people have several. Here's one of mine:

Law: All dwarves are created equal.

The hallmark of Law is that strength comes from numbers, unity and consensus. Allowing an individual to defy this consensus will shatter its strength, and therefore must be prevented at all costs. Law generally considers all beings under its rule to be equal, and will take steps to ensure they remain so either by disadvantaging the powerful or raising up the weak. Beings outside the rule of that aspect of Law are assumed to be under the rule of another aspect, and will be treated as such. This is the reason that, for example, citizens of a Lawful human kingdom will treat all orcs as being essentially the same. They assume that orc is part of 'Orcdom', or a similar concept. Their opinion will likely be different if the orc openly displays insignia of a different, known organisation. It is because of this instinct to identify with a group instead of an individual that Law finds it difficult to deal with exceptions.
Despite what might be thought, Lawful beings are very distinct from each other in many ways. This appearance of variety and difference is mostly illusory; in Lawful societies the individual is not the base unit. Lawful beings specialise at a task, with individuals supplied by and suppling others. While they look different on an individual level, communities are all largely the same when viewed as a whole.
Law protects its weaker members, but can also exploit them. It is often bound or blinded by tradition. It can restrain its stronger members, preventing them from reaching their full potential. As power in Law comes from numbers, less numerous groups within a larger society can be oppressed.


Chaos: Might Makes Right

The hallmark of Chaos is that strength comes from personal power. In the end, the only thing you can be certain of is yourself, your own desires, abilities and convictions. Allowing yourself to be restrained or relying upon the goodwill of others is to give up your strength, and must therefore be avoided at all costs. This is not to say that Chaos rejects the kindness of others, or will not seek it, only that it does not rely on it. Chaos thinks in terms of individuals and makes few assumptions of a person it has not seen before. It is because of this tendancy to identify with individuals instead of groups that Chaos finds it difficult to deal with homogenous organisations.
Chaotic beings are surprisingly similar to one another, until a little thought is given to the matter. For the most part, all beings need food, shelter and similar amenties; Chaos is self-reliant and thus must know how to provide these things for itself. It can thus be expected that most Chaotic beings will have the skills to do this.
Chaos has the freedom to strive for its fullest potential, but no assurances are made for those whose potential is meagre. It is as often a bloody reaver as a noble renegade.

[Merlin the Tuna]

I'm afraid we did go pretty far off topic pretty quickly over there, yes. A-whoops.

At any rate, as much as I abhor what he does mechanically, K is pretty good with fluff, and his Tome of Fiends compilation addresses a few different approaches to each axis as well as some of their shortcomings. Link. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=9285340&postcount=2)

[Xuincherguixe]

I kind of like alignment arguments to be honest. But I'd rather have a coherent game. And thanks for the link.