On the interpretation of evolving alignment systems

[Dhavaer]

Yay for pretentious thread titles!

I'm more shocked by the fact that Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil still exist rather than the elimination of the alignments above. This implies that law is good and chaos is bad.

The above is from the Just Bugs Me page for Dungeons & Dragons, accessible through this finely crafted link. The context is a response to a complaint about the removal of several alignments from 4e, and the purpose of this thread is to see how prevalent the attitude shown in this post; that the newly limited alignments in 4e imply that Law = Good and Chaos = Evil.

For my part, I don't see it that way. My interpretation is that Law acts as something of a restraint upon the moral alignments; that Lawful Good is Good restricted by Law and Chaotic Evil is Evil similarly unrestricted. So while Chaotic Evil is indeed more evil than Evil, that's not because Chaos is evil, but because Chaos allows more of a free reign in which to indulge one's Evilness or Goodness.

Your thoughts?

[Narmoth]

You have to remember that initially, in first ed D&D, you only had law, neutral and chaos.
And most (if not all) of the heroes were lawful, and all (to my knowledge) villains were chaotic

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Dhavaer: I agree completely. One's code of conduct, or lack thereof, doesn't inherently lean in one alignment direction or another. Instead, it simply modifies one's potential along one's chosen axis by means of approach. Lawful good has the potential for the most "good" because it is (at it's best) the path of altruistic restraint, whereas Chaotic Evil has the potential for the most "evil" because it is (at it's worst) the path of egocentric opportunism.

[toasty]

Okay, just looking at the alignment system as it is now I see the following:

Lawful Good
Good
Unaligned
Evil
Chaotic Evil

Not thinking about it that much I am led to believe the following: Lawful good = super good and chaotic evil = super evil.

Of course, if one properly understands the original alignment system (which, while confusing, did have its advantages so long as it did not become the sole line of reasoning by which a character acts) then one realizes that what the OP is saying is probably true. However, we can assume that a large number of people will be introduced to DnD via DnD 4E instead of the previous editions, and these people may not have the alignment system explained to them in terms of the previous alignment system...

My point is... DnD should have gotten rid of their aligment system or at least made it optional. I'd rather have an optional system than what they have now...

[Zincorium]

Such an interpretation makes sense. It also, like every other broad descriptor method of describing an individual's behavior (as opposed to a society's), will have numerous exceptions that either cause people to twist the reasoning until it's no longer fit for it's original purpose, or ignored in that particular case.

Is good that flows freely rather than being poured into a mold less good? Is carefully honed evil for the sake of revenge or sadistic pleasure less harmful than simple carefree sociopathy? Do you really, really think nothing like those questions will ever be asked?

I greatly prefer a more freeform declaration of beliefs, the Allegiance system from D20 modern has created far fewer arguments.

[Narmoth]

personally, I think a simple good, neutral, evil system would suffice.
Then you know that the villain you encounter is evil, and thus should be killed, and you yourself promise the dm not to slaughter every shopkeeper in sight, thus you are the good hero. That's after all the most necessary part of the alignment system

[Nightson]

The alignment system is optional. It has no mechanical effect on the game.

[MeklorIlavator]

I think neither is worse/better. Simply different. In fact, I use a anecdote from a sci-fi story. It's a re-imagining of Belisarius's time, but with a high tech base. The important thing is that in the regions conquered by barbarians they have two choices: stay with the old, barbarian regime or support the Byzantinesque liberators. Many influential people choose the former, even though they are constantly put down by the barbarians, even facing persecution, as the barbarians simply lack the civil structure to make an effective tax system(at least pertaining to trade/manufacture). On the other hand, the Byzantinesque faction has very effective taxation policies, which would place much more hardship on them. On the other hand, the peasants won't be targeted by tax collection any more than they already are, and will receive much less persecution. Thus, they choose the Byzantinesque faction.

This isn't a perfect metaphor, but I view Chaos as something similar to the barbarian regime: large, and touching many aspects of life, but unfocused, with a light touch. On the other hand, the Byzantinesque regime is like Law: extremely focused and effective, but only on certain layers, and those that it doesn't touch aren't affected in the least.

[Satyr]

As much as I despise the terribly stupifying alignment system, that part is certainly not as problematic as the idea of "there is good and there is evil" is per se. It is a fundamentally naive mistake to think that people in generally ae nice; they really, truly aren't. The typical being is egocentrical, egoistical and cares mostly abbout the satisfaction of its basic needs - food, shelter and sex.

Without order and especially control, human settlements devolve into Lord of the Flies quickly; without the fear of consequences, people do what they think is good for themselves, not for some kind of greater good. Homo Homini Lupus est. Humanity is a restrained beast, and if you take away the restrainments, the beast will go rampant. And the solitary being will lok everywhere for the satisfaction of its needs - and take the food, take the shelter and take the sex, if it can.

Take away the control (and especially the fear of punishment), and you take away the need to care about the well-being of other people.

[Tsotha-lanti]

You have to remember that initially, in first ed D&D, you only had law, neutral and chaos.
And most (if not all) of the heroes were lawful, and all (to my knowledge) villains were chaotic

Yeah, back in red-box D&D, "chaotic" meant "evil" and "lawful" meant "good." It was a bit messed up.

[_Zoot_]

Yay for pretentious thread titles!
For my part, I don't see it that way. My interpretation is that Law acts as something of a restraint upon the moral alignments; that Lawful Good is Good restricted by Law and Chaotic Evil is Evil similarly unrestricted. So while Chaotic Evil is indeed more evil than Evil, that's not because Chaos is evil, but because Chaos allows more of a free reign in which to indulge one's Evilness or Goodness.

Your thoughts?

I think that is a very good way of saying it.

I’m not normally one to worry about aliments, which is odd because i often play evil character as well as good ones. I don't really get behind one aliment area (LG NG CG LN NN CN ect) i just go with what ever works for the character im playing or the mood i'm in and then classify it I don’t pick an aliment area then decide how to play it and what that area allows for.

[Neithan]

If it works for this obscure new game, they can do what they want. It has no influence on my D&D.

[horseboy]

Take away the control (and especially the fear of punishment), and you take away the need to care about the well-being of other people.

Well, as someone who lives in a place effectively without law enforcement I would like to point out that "The Law" is not the only place that societal controls originate. There's also religious dogma, sense of community (Belonging) and clan obligations as well.

[The Rose Dragon]

And secular morality. Don't forget secular morality.

[woodenbandman]

Anyone who hates the 3.5 system of alignment should buy heroes of horror: because sometimes bad people do good things.

Not too sure about the 4.0 alignment system, but for 3.5 Heroes of Horror has a good-ish system that doesn't have a permanent alignment but allows you to see evil actions or people motivated by evil with Detect Evil. You could smite a bad person in their house, but not while they happen to be saving a boat full of children.

[hamishspence]

That wasn't what caught my attention- I was more interested in

"even if person is evil- doesn't mean Smiting them is OK, and Detect Evil isn't necessarily evidence. A paladin who Smites person he detects as evil, in absence of other evidence, can expect to find himself the wrong side of a prison door"

TV Tropes, citing Eberron, put it rather bluntly: "The tavern owner shorts he customers and cheats on his wife- are you going to put the sword to his neck like you would with Lord Dark Von Doompants IV?"

[horseboy]

That wasn't what caught my attention- I was more interested in

"even if person is evil- doesn't mean Smiting them is OK, and Detect Evil isn't necessarily evidence. A paladin who Smites person he detects as evil, in absence of other evidence, can expect to find himself the wrong side of a prison door"

TV Tropes, citing Eberron, put it rather bluntly: "The tavern owner shorts he customers and cheats on his wife- are you going to put the sword to his neck like you would with Lord Dark Von Doompants IV?"

And that's the problem with having Objective morality tied to game mechanics and a "generic" setting. You know a Paladin is Objectively good otherwise he wouldn't be a paladin. You know the bartender is Objectively evil or else he wouldn't ping evil. If your setting incorporates a medieval legal system that allows "spectral" evidence, then yes, it's completely reasonable. If your setting uses a more 21 century western legal system then no, it's not.

[The Neoclassic]

I don't really like the "LG is the best good" and "CE is the worst evil" approach that a lot of people take. I realize that it's popular and all that, but I always throw in a lot of CG/LE dynamic. Too much order can easily slip into tyranny and, in my opinion, lawful evil is the epitome of hopelessness. Things don't change, there's no way to upset the order or break free, you are just trapped in bureaucracy and oppression and tyranny. Chaotic good isn't restricted by some set code but rather places everyone's freedom to be happy (without messing up someone else's freedom to be happy, of course) above all else and acts accordingly.

I don't think law restricts expression of good/evil, I think law vs. chaos is just a matter of means. Good/evil are ends, and people select chaos or law as they determine to be the most effective means to their end (either happiness and well-being for others/everyone as good or happiness/well-being for only themself at the expense of others as evil).

Of course, this is entirely my interpretation and no one can ever agree on the "right" way to view the alignment system. It works for me, my players, my settings, and my webcomic, so that's what counts.

[Xuincherguixe]

To be fair, Lord Dark Von Doompants IV's has gotten kind of a bad rap. Certainly the previous 3 von Doompants caused a great deal of menance, and while IV's pants have brought doom, those are just his pants.

He's actually a pretty swell guy.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I don't really like the "LG is the best good" and "CE is the worst evil" approach that a lot of people take. I realize that it's popular and all that, but I always throw in a lot of CG/LE dynamic. Too much order can easily slip into tyranny and, in my opinion, lawful evil is the epitome of hopelessness. Things don't change, there's no way to upset the order or break free, you are just trapped in bureaucracy and oppression and tyranny. Chaotic good isn't restricted by some set code but rather places everyone's freedom to be happy (without messing up someone else's freedom to be happy, of course) above all else and acts accordingly.

So, a counterpoint:

Lawful Good is the greatest Good because not only do its followers work to do Good things, but they do their best to set up systems where Good things happen. NG or CG are much more individually focused - they care about doing Good for whomever they can see, first and foremost. LG cares about everyone - that's why they follow rules to that end, rather than allow personal whim to dominate their lives. Law can certainly be tyrannical, but a true LG state cares about the sanctity of life and the dignity of sentient beings.

Chaotic Evil is the greatest Evil because it does not have limits. It is implicit that both Lawful and Neutral Evils do follow some rules; they care about tradition and the rule of law - even if it is only a Thieves' Code. Chaotic Evil cares for nothing but the self; if it feels good, they will do it. There is literally no limit to the sort of Evil they are willing to do.

Like you said, Law and Chaos are just means to ends, but that also means they are not inherently "good" or "evil." Here, Lawful Good entails the most amount of self-restraint in your actions - you are governed by rules which transcend personal whim; Chaotic Evil is the absolute least amount of self-restraint - nothing but your own desires governs what you will do. This is why they are placed on the 4E Spectrum as they are, and why Paladins were traditionally held up as paragons of Goodness.

[BRC]

To be fair, Lord Dark Von Doompants IV's has gotten kind of a bad rap. Certainly the previous 3 von Doompants caused a great deal of menance, and while IV's pants have brought doom, those are just his pants.

He's actually a pretty swell guy.

That is awsome. I am very, very close to Sigging that.

[Oracle_Hunter]

To be fair, Lord Dark Von Doompants IV's has gotten kind of a bad rap. Certainly the previous 3 von Doompants caused a great deal of menance, and while IV's pants have brought doom, those are just his pants.

He's actually a pretty swell guy.

You know who's also a pretty swell guy? Kharn the Betrayer.

[Saph]

I'm 90% sure that it's just a return to the way alignment originally was.

One of the big influences on the very first versions of D&D was a book by Poul Anderson called Three Hearts and Three Lions, and as far as I know it and Elric were the source of alignment. In Three Hearts and Three Lions the sides are Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral. The top end of Lawful isn't explicitly described as Lawful Good, but the main character is a dead ringer for a D&D Lawful Good Paladin.

Three Hearts and Three Lions is also where D&D got regenerating trolls and the Kill It With Fire solution. :) Seriously, you'd think it was a D&D novel if it hadn't come first.

- Saph

[Fishy]

At the risk of Godwining,

Archduke d'Nastyface III decides that he alone has the divine right to rule the universe, and literally everything else that lives is an unclean stain on the earth that needs to be destroyed. Rather than go out and stab random people, he makes a plan.

While planning, he doesn't let any evil act escape his imagination, but he weighs it against costs, risks, and effectiveness towards his ends. He will consider doing anything, but he simply won't put all of his whims into motion immediately.

He exercises intense personal discipline, shaping his body, his habits, his public personal and his inner mind into something that will best put his plan into action.

He designs literal and metaphorical machines for spreading control and death, and he runs them all at maximum efficiency. He creates an empire, and he comes damn close to crushing the world with it.

... Tell me again how this is better than Chaotic Evil?

[horseboy]

I don't really like the "LG is the best good" and "CE is the worst evil" approach that a lot of people take. I realize that it's popular and all that, but I always throw in a lot of CG/LE dynamic. Too much order can easily slip into tyranny and, in my opinion, lawful evil is the epitome of hopelessness. Things don't change, there's no way to upset the order or break free, you are just trapped in bureaucracy and oppression and tyranny. Chaotic good isn't restricted by some set code but rather places everyone's freedom to be happy (without messing up someone else's freedom to be happy, of course) above all else and acts accordingly.

Well, given that government is at best a necessary evil and at worst a tyranny, I rarely associate "Lawful Good" with "government" and "bureaucracy". Usually LG characters are more highly disciplined individuals, sometimes prone to more rigid though patterns, kinda like Frank Castle. Sure, once in a while you hit the "good cop" paladin, but they're more the exception.

[Stephen_E]

Yay for pretentious thread titles!



The above is from the Just Bugs Me page for Dungeons & Dragons, accessible through this finely crafted link. The context is a response to a complaint about the removal of several alignments from 4e, and the purpose of this thread is to see how prevalent the attitude shown in this post; that the newly limited alignments in 4e imply that Law = Good and Chaos = Evil.

For my part, I don't see it that way. My interpretation is that Law acts as something of a restraint upon the moral alignments; that Lawful Good is Good restricted by Law and Chaotic Evil is Evil similarly unrestricted. So while Chaotic Evil is indeed more evil than Evil, that's not because Chaos is evil, but because Chaos allows more of a free reign in which to indulge one's Evilness or Goodness.

Your thoughts?

I agree with TV Tropes.

It was simply 4th Ed going back to the old DnD where Chaos is evil and Law Good. A seriously retrograde step but sadly not that surprising when you think of some of the pre-4th Ed stuff coming out, such as the Grey Guard.

I don't agree at all with the idea that Chaos makes evil more powerful or evil, or that law makes good "more good".

As Saph said the Chaos=evil and Law=good is very much from the Moorcock books and Poul Andersons "Three Hearts and Three Lions".

While those books were groundbreaking in that they at least addressed the concept of there been things other than straight Good/Evil axis (the Chaos weren't always evil and the Law weren't always that good) a much improved set of works are the books by Louise Cooper, in particular "The Time Master Trilogy"

Stephen E

[Thajocoth]

This is how I see it... Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral and Neutral Evil have been removed. Chaotic Good was renamed Good, Lawful Evil was renamed Evil and True Neutral was renamed Unaligned.

I run a 4E campaign, but I let people pick from any of the 9 alignments, despite never having played anything prior to 4E, because I agree that removing almost half the possibilities makes little sense, even if it still covers the 5 alignments most people will pick.

[Artanis]

This is how I see it... Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral and Neutral Evil have been removed. Chaotic Good was renamed Good, Lawful Evil was renamed Evil and True Neutral was renamed Unaligned.

This is exactly the way I see it.

Most people simply look at the names and say, "oh, now they say that Lawful is good (note the lowercase 'g') and Chaos is evil!" But when I look at the descriptions given in the PHB, it seems pretty clear to me that 4e Evil = 3e LE and that 4e Good = 3e CG.

To me, the fact that there's an "Unaligned" rather than a True Neutral only further reinforces the idea that it's the five Neutral alignments that have been removed, and not CG & LE.

[The Neoclassic]

Lawful Good is the greatest Good because not only do its followers work to do Good things,

Does it say that anywhere in any source book? I can see people structuring settings as such, but this seems an entirely opinion point. Of course, this entire thing is really opinion; a lot of people such as yourself think LG is better than other good, and will run their settings as such, but I reject that the alignment system makes that the only and the necessary interpretation.

EDIT: Oops, I originally misread this as "its followers do the most work for good things." Though, of course, there's still the point that chaotic and neutral people do good things too... And in CG's case, work to take apart systems which or topple rulers who do or perpetuate evil, the counterpart to setting up good systems. In some cases, a bad system must be challenged and taken down before a better one can be set up.

but they do their best to set up systems where Good things happen.

Yes, because they’re very system and structure oriented. However, this approach isn’t always going to be the most effective; for one, it assumes that others will follow the systems set up as intended. Additionally, many lawful individuals don’t actively set up systems, they just tend to be more likely to follow the law, be organized, etc; traits which may have little impact on their ability to do good.

NG or CG are much more individually focused - they care about doing Good for whomever they can see, first and foremost. LG cares about everyone - that's why they follow rules to that end, rather than allow personal whim to dominate their lives.

I don’t think that CG characters are more individually focused. In fact, lawful characters may feel bound by tradition, family ties, or honor regarding whom to help and associate with, whereas chaotic characters are not restricted by any such qualms. To say that chaotic good characters only care about people by whims or personal attachment by lawful good characters care about everyone is just not an accurate generalization; it may be the case for some people, by examples of vice versa are easy to come by.

Chaotic Evil is the greatest Evil because it does not have limits. It is implicit that both Lawful and Neutral Evils do follow some rules; they care about tradition and the rule of law - even if it is only a Thieves' Code. Chaotic Evil cares for nothing but the self; if it feels good, they will do it. There is literally no limit to the sort of Evil they are willing to do.

But you said that law was the most effective way to organize things and get one’s goals accomplished (setting up good systems, you said, is superior to just doing good on one’s own whim). Therefore, lawful evil would be far more dangerous in how much evil it’s able to carry out. Chaotic evil also tends to lack the focus or care to systematically oppress large groups of people; anarchy is dangerous but the freedom it provides may make it preferable, in some cases, to tyranny, where one has no control over one’s life and is still at a great risk of death.

Like you said, Law and Chaos are just means to ends, but that also means they are not inherently "good" or "evil." Here, Lawful Good entails the most amount of self-restraint in your actions - you are governed by rules which transcend personal whim; Chaotic Evil is the absolute least amount of self-restraint - nothing but your own desires governs what you will do. This is why they are placed on the 4E Spectrum as they are, and why Paladins were traditionally held up as paragons of Goodness.

And this is why I don’t play 4E or subscribe to older views of the alignment system. I simply don’t think it’s accurate, for the reasons listed above. Self-restraint is not the only trait of law, but being bound by tradition and honor may actually interfere with good. Similarly, chaos does not simply mean “whim” as determined merely by selfish or random motives, but rather thinking for one’s self and not allowing the societal status quo to tell one whom to help, how, and when. If a lack of self-restraint makes one ineffective and unable/unlikely to impact everyone in a meaningful way, then logically chaotic evil is less dangerous than more restrained (and hence effective) evils.

I think the self-restraint = good is partially thanks to the influence of real world religions, and while of course that will influence people, that doesn’t mean it should be assumed to be the most accurate in all situations for the D&D world (or even in real life, but that’s another matter). The Player’s Handbook gives a why to the first six alignments for why it could be considered best and a why to the last three for why it could be considered the most dangerous, clearly stating by the 3.5 core three rulebooks that LG is not automatically the best good and must always be assumed and applied as such.

[shadowfox]

... Might I note that alignment is purely subjective? I've played countless Lawful Neutral characters with more moral fibers than the party's Lawful Stupid... er, Lawful Good Paladin (classic case: "How about not killing the greedy merchant on the sole basis that he registered on your Detect Evil scan?").

If TSR, WotC, etc., wanted to explain alignments as they are, it'd be a book's worth. There are intricacies, subtleties, and exceptions. Nothing stops an order of paladins from being the bad guys (especially if you're not running an evil campaign). At the same note, nothing stops there being a Lawful Evil hero who saves the day.

Well, nothing except the DM, that is.

Mind you, it's not the system. It's the individual.