Alignment "Contradictions"

[Zovc]

As a peface, I know a lot of people like to fling dung over this issue, but that's not what I want.

I remember someone claiming that one could describe a character as a paragon of both law and chaos without any serious contradictions, or something along the lines of that. This, of course, is problematic, since Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposites. Anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm having a conversation with a friend, and he said he'd like to see 'this'.

If you feel like you can provide something else relevant to this topic, feel free to do so.

Thanks in advance.

[Raistlin1040]

If you were Neutral Good, theoretically you could be a Paragon of Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, but that's more because people misunderstand the Law/Chaos break. If a Chaotic Good character lives in a Lawful Good society, he's still probably a happy guy. He might wish there were less laws, but they're mostly there for the good of the people. If he lives in a Lawful Evil Society, he's going to hate it, and overthrow it if he can.

A Lawful Good Character? Still going to hate the Lawful Evil society. Still going to overthrow it if he can. LE and CE have such defined personalities. CE is a psychopath who kills anyone he sees. LE is a cunning killer who covers his tracks and follows a "profile" of who to kill. LN and CN are *designed* to be total opposites, even if they usually don't end up being played that way. But LG and CG? Usually working for the same goals, so the difference is a bit muddied. I'd see a Neutral Good character played with the "best" traits of Law and Chaos to be the best Good character possible, in terms of unbiased Goodness.

But a True Neutral Character who is a lot like a Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral one? Seems very unlikely. LN is order for the sake of order. CN is chaos for the sake of Chaos. Slipping down to LE and CE, they have different goals and desires, and can be radically different. So, no. I'd say impossible to be a purely Lawful and purely Chaotic character at the same time, unless you have two personalities. LG/CG though? It could be done.

[Marriclay]

So, no. I'd say impossible to be a purely Lawful and purely Chaotic character at the same time, unless you have two personalities. LG/CG though? It could be done.

Impulsive side versus law abiding side? That could prove an interesting character

Anyways, I agree completely with Rastlin here. For the most part characters are dictated more by moral choice (Good vs. Evil) than Ethical ones (Lawful vs. Chaotic). You don't see many lawful good characters bent more towards law than good, just as you donn't see many chaotic evil characters who are little more than an excuse to derail and burn things

[Raistlin1040]

You don't see many lawful good characters bent more towards law than good, just as you donn't see many chaotic evil characters who are little more than an excuse to derail and burn things

Well...you shouldn't, anyway. They do seem to crop up from time to time.

[Marriclay]

Well...you shouldn't, anyway. They do seem to crop up from time to time.

very true, but they are more likely to come from the dedicated roleplayers who can actually do it well. Chaotic Evil character dedicated to the anarchy that is whatever god they follow? Check. Paladin focused on retribution with little room for mercy? More likely to fall than others, but still a check. For the most part though, those characters are 1 in 1000. all the other 999 are some strange (or sometimes bland) variation on what we unconsciously perceive as the dominant alignment traits. it's why you see so few characters that are LN or CN that are actually played dedicated to their ideal (rather than just being an excuse to have a stick up your butt or be insane)

[Vitruviansquid]

Let me get this out of the way first: You being called upon to prove someone else's outrageous statement is... kinda weird. I mean, can you no longer reach the person who claimed this? O_o

The way I see it, a character being both pure lawful and pure chaotic can happen because of Law is a part of Chaos.

Another way to think of it is that, if Chaos is the trait of being able to do absolutely anything, then it includes being able to "do Law."

Example: An absolutely chaotic character has a whim - to be Lawful for the rest of his life. In this sense, you have a character acting completely lawful, but he does it in an absolutely chaotic framework.


At the same time, another paradox allows chaos to be contained in Law. What if there was a law that read, "Do what you want?" Then isn't being chaotic, which is basically synonymous with doing whatever you want, actually being lawful?

Example: A character who has sworn to do exactly what he wants all the time. In this, you have a character that is purely chaotic in a sense because of his absolute refusal to conform. At the same time, he is purely lawful because he is literally living his life according to an unbending code

[Yora]

When a character has both lawful and chaotic tendencies, I make him neutral. Easy as that.

[Math_Mage]

Example: A character who has sworn to do exactly what he wants all the time. In this, you have a character that is purely chaotic in a sense because of his absolute refusal to conform. At the same time, he is purely lawful because he is literally living his life according to an ethical code

I think the paradox may be only skin-deep. For one thing, how is 'doing exactly what you want to do' an ethical code? As stated, the character has simply decided to do whatever he wants, not that doing whatever he wants is the appropriate ethical decision. Then, too, the 'purely' Lawful/Chaotic aspects you cite are just that: aspects of their respective alignments. A character whose actions evince Lawful and Chaotic aspects is not necessarily a paradox.

[Zovc]

Let me get this out of the way first: You being called upon to prove someone else's outrageous statement is... kinda weird. I mean, can you no longer reach the person who claimed this? O_o

Well, it was somewhere in a thread, not someone I 'make regular contact with'.

My friend isn't asking me to prove their statement, I'm just hoping to provide it to him. He likes debating things because he's a Philosophy major. :P

[Vitruviansquid]

I think the paradox may be only skin-deep. For one thing, how is 'doing exactly what you want to do' an ethical code? As stated, the character has simply decided to do whatever he wants, not that doing whatever he wants is the appropriate ethical decision. Then, too, the 'purely' Lawful/Chaotic aspects you cite are just that: aspects of their respective alignments. A character whose actions evince Lawful and Chaotic aspects is not necessarily a paradox.

I edited out the word "ethical" because I figured it was more a part of the good-evil axis than lawful-chaotic. The important part is whether or not the character is following a "code," an external thing that would force him to decide in a way that may not be what he really wants.

Let me try to explain my reasoning this way:

A. You are faced with a choice of doing X or doing Y. By definition, Chaotic means there's a chance you would do X and a chance you would do Y.

Lawful, on the other hand, means there is no probability and you will always do X or always do Y, depending on the particular law or code you followed.

B. The choice you're faced with making is either to act purely Lawful (X) or to act purely Chaotic (Y)

C. You can be purely Lawful by making choice X in a Lawful manner, where no matter what, you would not have made choice Y.

You can be purely Chaotic by making choice Y with the chance that you could, instead, have made choice X.

D. However, you can be purely Lawful AND purely Chaotic by making choice X although you could, instead, have made choice Y.

The same happens if you make choice Y by the fact that you would always have made choice Y.

edit: I guess I could put it in another way. "Deciding" or "Committing" to do something is a Lawful action, since you're arbitrarily restricting yourself from other possibilities. Thus, if you "Decide" to "be Chaotic," you're acting Chaotic, but within a paradoxically Lawful framework.

[Marriclay]

I edited out the word "ethical" because I figured it was more a part of the good-evil axis than lawful-chaotic. The important part is whether or not the character is following a "code," an external thing that would force him to decide in a way that may not be what he really wants.

Let me try to explain my reasoning this way:

A. You are faced with a choice of doing X or doing Y. By definition, Chaotic means there's a chance you would do X and a chance you would do Y.

Lawful, on the other hand, means there is no probability and you will always do X or always do Y, depending on the particular law or code you followed.

B. The choice you're faced with making is either to act purely Lawful (X) or to act purely Chaotic (Y)

C. You can be purely Lawful by making choice X in a Lawful manner, where no matter what, you would not have made choice Y.

You can be purely Chaotic by making choice Y with the chance that you could, instead, have made choice X.

D. However, you can be purely Lawful AND purely Chaotic by making choice X although you could, instead, have made choice Y.

The same happens if you make choice Y by the fact that you would always have made choice Y.

You're logic has a single hole in it though. You say that making choice X when you could have made choice Y is both Lawful and Chaotic. While this is not contradictory to the previous statement, you have to consider intentions. They are what make the day. killing a man can be construed in an insane amount of ways, all based on your intentions and thoughts. There are many occasions where people have described a single action from all nine alignment viewpoints. I'm too tired to make one, but suffice it to say, this causes a lot of problems

this could mean that X is Y, dependent on the person performing the action. or that both Y and X are Y. or that both X and Y are A (Good). or Maybe they're B (Evil). Or maybe they're AY. or BX. or maybe they're something else entirely, or all of them. killing a man is normally considered an evil act, but acting as an appointed executioner is a lawful, if distasteful, one. chaotic might have been impulse. stopping him from harming others is good.

In the end, it's the character intention that holds true, not some silly mathematical formula attempting to break fluff the same way we've broken everything else in this game. Yes, a chaotic action can be a lawful action, but it can also be said that every square is a rectangle without every rectangle being a square. it's a logic hole, that, while no less true for being such, is sadly irrelevant

Disclaimer: I apologize if a bit of that is incoherent or otherwise doesn't make sense. inform me and I shall do my best to correct it, though it may take a few tries, as a tired mind is a confused mind. Accursed insomnia.

[Zombimode]

Could someone explain the meaning of "ethical" to me?
Because the terms "Ethics" and "ethical" how they are used in philosophy contradict with the way you guys use them here.
To explain: ethics is the sience of moral; in other words, ethics = moral philosophy.

In this usage statements can be ethical, or theories can have ethical aspects, but actions can not. Actions may have a moral quality but "ethical" is not a property that actions could have.

But maybe there is a colloquial meaning that differs from that?

[Vitruviansquid]

You're logic has a single hole in it though. You say that making choice X when you could have made choice Y is both Lawful and Chaotic. While this is not contradictory to the previous statement, you have to consider intentions. They are what make the day. killing a man can be construed in an insane amount of ways, all based on your intentions and thoughts. There are many occasions where people have described a single action from all nine alignment viewpoints. I'm too tired to make one, but suffice it to say, this causes a lot of problems

this could mean that X is Y, dependent on the person performing the action. or that both Y and X are Y. or that both X and Y are A (Good). or Maybe they're B (Evil). Or maybe they're AY. or BX. or maybe they're something else entirely, or all of them. killing a man is normally considered an evil act, but acting as an appointed executioner is a lawful, if distasteful, one. chaotic might have been impulse. stopping him from harming others is good.

In the end, it's the character intention that holds true, not some silly mathematical formula attempting to break fluff the same way we've broken everything else in this game. Yes, a chaotic action can be a lawful action, but it can also be said that every square is a rectangle without every rectangle being a square. it's a logic hole, that, while no less true for being such, is sadly irrelevant

Disclaimer: I apologize if a bit of that is incoherent or otherwise doesn't make sense. inform me and I shall do my best to correct it, though it may take a few tries, as a tired mind is a confused mind. Accursed insomnia.

Here's the problem with me trying to explain someone else's claim. I'm explaining a way in which he would be correct even though there exist other ways in which he's wrong.

This "silly mathematical formula" is only one way to approach the problem, but you have to realize that your "intentions are the only thing that matters" is only another way, out of many, to approach the problem as well.

In DnD, I've found that different people have different views of what alignments mean, from "intentions matter," to "actions matter," to even "race matters." It's usually the DM's job to determine and establish which actually matters in a particular campaign.

[Zombimode]

I try to come to an understanding how the terms "chaotic" and "lawfull" are used in the aligment context.
Your statement contain a bit of a definition so I hope you dont mind that I focus only on this part.
Concerning the definition, I have some questions.

A. You are faced with a choice of doing X or doing Y. By definition, Chaotic means there's a chance you would do X and a chance you would do Y.

You say chaotic means: "there's a chance" whether to choose option X or Y.

No the question arises: what do you mean by "there's a chance"? Is this chance from a worldly perspektive (a spectators perspektive) or from a godly?

a) From a worldly perspektive it would probaly mean something like: his past actions are not coherent enough for me to predict his choice now.

b) From a godly perspektive it would mean, that somewhere in his choicemaking process there is a truly random element.

If you mean a) then chaotic becomes relative (based on the available information and knowledge of the spectators). Since the D&D aligment system requires its categories to be constant and not relative, this could not be.

But if you mean b) then the question arises, why this specific (chaotic) individual has this random element in his choicemaking process while others (the lawfull) of the same species have not.

But maybe I have misunderstood your usage of "there is a chance". If yes, could you explain, what you wanted to say with it?

[Vitruviansquid]

I try to come to an understanding how the terms "chaotic" and "lawfull" are used in the aligment context.
Your statement contain a bit of a definition so I hope you dont mind that I focus only on this part.
Concerning the definition, I have some questions.



You say chaotic means: "there's a chance" whether to choose option X or Y.

No the question arises: what do you mean by "there's a chance"? Is this chance from a worldly perspektive (a spectators perspektive) or from a godly?

a) From a worldly perspektive it would probaly mean something like: his past actions are not coherent enough for me to predict his choice now.

b) From a godly perspektive it would mean, that somewhere in his choicemaking process there is a truly random element.

If you mean a) then chaotic becomes relative (based on the available information and knowledge of the spectators). Since the D&D aligment system requires its categories to be constant and not relative, this could not be.

But if you mean b) then the question arises, why this specific (chaotic) individual has this random element in his choicemaking process while others (the lawfull) of the same species have not.

But maybe I have misunderstood your usage of "there is a chance". If yes, could you explain, what you wanted to say with it?

By your definition, I mean the "godly perspective."

I don't understand how your question impacts the Zovc's question or my answer to it.

But to answer it... why would a specific individual have a random element in his choicemaking process? Possibly because he's a Demon... or because he's not a Modron. Or possibly because the player behind the character decided to roll a die or flip a coin every time the character had to make a decision.

[Snake-Aes]

"just wing it" is sort of the attitude that comes with Chaos... but a chaotic guy wouldn't do anything stupid out of randomness unless he was stupid.

[Yuki Akuma]

"just wing it" is sort of the attitude that comes with Chaos... but a chaotic guy wouldn't do anything stupid out of randomness unless he was stupid.

Or completely, irredeemably insane. With a low Wisdom.

[Grumman]

"just wing it" is sort of the attitude that comes with Chaos...

Agreed. A chaotic character goes with what seems like the best option at the time, rather than specifically trying to be consistent. This still won't be random, unless the character is incapable of such a judgement.

[Mr. Anon Omys]

Even good and evil can be combined in the same person. What about someone who saves puppies, asks first and shoots second, and never commits a truly evil act in his life, but spends his time setting up situations in which others have to act evil, sacrificing their morals to accomplish some goal. The character never does evil, but he advises others to commit evil and then makes sure that they carry through. His actions are mostly good, but his intent is truly evil. Is this character good or evil? Or both?

[Snake-Aes]

Even good and evil can be combined in the same person. What about someone who saves puppies, asks first and shoots second, and never commits a truly evil act in his life, but spends his time setting up situations in which others have to act evil, sacrificing their morals to accomplish some goal. The character never does evil, but he advises others to commit evil and then makes sure that they carry through. His actions are mostly good, but his intent is truly evil. Is this character good or evil? Or both?

Evil. Very likely lawful too, as he has a very fixed method of keeping a mask and making sure everyone else is indirectly miserable.

[nedz]

I think that you may be looking at this the wrong way around.

I think that I recall the thead to which you are referring.

In it the OP said, This is what my character is like, What alignment is he ?

Several of us came up with reasoned arguements as to why they might be LG, NG, CG, LN, NN or CN; but :-
The characterisation wasn't a simplistic idea whereas the alignment system is.
We never claimed thet the character was, or could be, a paragon of any alignment.

[hamishspence]

Even good and evil can be combined in the same person. What about someone who saves puppies, asks first and shoots second, and never commits a truly evil act in his life, but spends his time setting up situations in which others have to act evil, sacrificing their morals to accomplish some goal. The character never does evil, but he advises others to commit evil and then makes sure that they carry through. His actions are mostly good, but his intent is truly evil. Is this character good or evil? Or both?

"Good acts" done for selfish reasons are Neutral in BoED.

Tempting others to do evil is an evil act in BoVD. So- even if you never "do evil" with your own hands, encouraging others to do evil is enough.

That said, not everybody uses these two sources. Still, I figure that tempting others should always count.

[Lhurgyof]

You don't see many lawful good characters bent more towards law than good, just as you donn't see many chaotic evil characters who are little more than an excuse to derail and burn things

My friend had a knack for playing paladins that saw law as more important that good... Got away with some nasty stuff. Dx

But then again, he was playing it more like a crusader, which makes sense for a paladin.

Edit: I hate people who argue about alignments. The alignment lined are quite blurred and aren't as black and white as most people think. A lawful good character won't always go out of his way to go smiting goblins just because they're evil. Think of people in real life; Sure there are extremists, but most people are just normal, even if they are good, or evil, it's more of how you conduct yourself personally, and I hate people that say "OH your lawful neutral, you should have OCD and murder people who break the law and never ever have a sense of humor. You should have an alignment change!11!" (sorry, I play with someone like that and it really pisses me off ^.^;;)

[Friend Computer]

This idea that 'chaotic' means 'random' is... wrong.
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....
"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.

If posed with a hard situation, the chaotic character will not necessarily 'wing it' but will not hold tradition in any high regard and will not do what they are told because they are told to by an authority figure. They will make their decision based on what feels right to them. They may ask for outside help in making the decision, or they may reject all outside input as an unwanted intrusion.

The lawful character, however, will make their decision based on what they've been told to do by those authorities they consider legitimate, based on tradition, and based on a more or less concrete personal code.

It isn't really about structure vs randomness.

Also:

CE is a psychopath who kills anyone he sees. LE is a cunning killer who covers his tracks and follows a "profile" of who to kill.

Is completely, totally, and unconditionally wrong. CE is certainly evil, but this does not imply that they are some kind of idiot that randomly kills. yes, they do very bad stuff for the lulz, but they also have int/wis scores like any other creature of their race, and would only take advantage of a situation to engage in their evil whim if they think they can get away with it. In a city ruled by a powerful order of paladins, there might be many CE people who are not found guilty of any crime, simply because they are not idiots, and keep any evil they commit to the shadows, where no one notices, or simply be too scared by the paladin pressence that they never get around to acting on their evil whims.

Also of note is that evil is not merely killing. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. The landlord who, being the only one with money within weeks worth of travel, forces the children of his peasants into slavery to pay the debts of their parents, and then being the only supplier of most goods, demanding greater prices for his goods, keeping the peasants held tightly in his financial grip, treating them as he wishes... That is a perfectly valid evil as well, and most certainly of the lawful kind.

The descriptions of good and evil, of law and chaos given in the books and SRD show us many facets of these alignments. It is utterly stupid to flanderize them into one interpretation of one facet, and then set that up as a straw man. As it is there is lots of room for differing interpretations when you aren't dealing with flanderised, exagerated CN flip-a-coin-to-jump-off-the-bridge, CE psychopathy, and LG lawful-stupid, so there is no need to bring them into it.

Ever.

[Mastikator]

The core of the problem I see is that alignment multiple things that don't necessarily relate. Alignment describes your personality, but also your "side", it also describes your principles AND your actions to boot. Someone can be impulsive, but principally value rules and order, someone can be selfless but still kill without remorse. This makes it very hard to pin down an alignment since it can go either way depending on what facts you prioritize (and you have to decide what facts are more important arbitrary since it's not described by RAW or even RAI AFAIK).

Because of this fact, the 4e alignment system is superior. It describes only one of the things above, specifically which side you're on.

Personally, I am in favor of simply removing the entire system. Use adjectives to describe the personality, and flesh out the specific, exact goals the character has. Do this instead of being distracted by which alignment it has. Yes, I said it, and I stand by it, alignments distract you from roleplaying.

[hamishspence]

Often, it doesn't do that. CE deities like Grummsh fought alongside Evil , Unaligned, Good, and LG deities in the Dawn War against the primordials, who were a mix of Unaligned, Evil, and CE.

4E alignment doesn't really decribe whose side you are on that well.

Also of note is that evil is not merely killing. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. The landlord who, being the only one with money within weeks worth of travel, forces the children of his peasants into slavery to pay the debts of their parents, and then being the only supplier of most goods, demanding greater prices for his goods, keeping the peasants held tightly in his financial grip, treating them as he wishes... That is a perfectly valid evil as well, and most certainly of the lawful kind.

Agreed- and it doesn't have to be as severe as slavery. A tavern brawler who beats anyone tough-looking, and mocks anyone weak-looking, who comes into "his" bar because he wants to keep his position as Scariest Guy Around (but doesn't actively try to kill anyone) is still "hurting and oppressing others" and may qualify as evil-aligned.

[NecroRebel]

This question, as I've always understood it, arises due to how Law and Chaos are defined in-game. The definitions for both are very clear (though very much unsatisfactory, in part due to this paradox arising), and are as follows.

From the srd:

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.

A character who always tells the truth and keeps their word because their conscience tells them to and they like doing what their conscience tells them to, likes new ideas over tradition yet still respects what has come before, judges people who fall short of their duties, and resents being ordered around but respects authority enough to at least listen to their requests fits both the definition for a lawful character and a chaotic character. So, are they Lawful, or Chaotic? It could be either, it could be neither, or it could be both.

To the OP: If your friend is a philosophy major and beyond his second year of higher education, he's probably very familiar with the concept that how we define terms can completely shape our arguments, even to violations of common sense. This contradiction arises, for the most part, solely because the way alignments are defined are not clearusable. People constantly want to add things to the definitions of alignments just to make them somewhat workable; even the generally-accepted idea that "'just wing it' is the attitude of Chaotics" is not, strictly speaking, part of the definition.

[hamishspence]

I'd go with Neutral for characters who exhibit a mix of common Chaotic and Lawful traits.

[NecroRebel]

I'd go with Neutral for characters who exhibit a mix of common Chaotic and Lawful traits.

As would I, but that doesn't change the fact that they have every Chaotic trait and are thus arguably Chaotic and every Lawful trait and are thus arguably Lawful

[hamishspence]

Main difference is (unlike Good/Evil) there isn't much in the way of precedent for resolving it one way or another.


On the Good/Evil axis, a character with some Evil traits and some Good, is more likely to be Evil than Good, if those evil traits are severe enough. If you torture people regularly, you're Evil, even if you're also charitable and kind to those in need, going by Champions of Ruin.

However there isn't an "If you follow orders you think suck, you're Lawful, even if you do Chaotic things" text anywhere.

There's an essay:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of...ity_and_Fiends

which discusses this sort of thing- pointing out that DMs have to setting some things if they're using Alignment, since the game always leaves it a little vague.

And that Lawful and Chaotic are so undefined as to be useless.