Alignment not flexible enough?

[Leper_Kahn]

I have a plan to make a character who is, essentially, chaotic evil. After reading the "What Chaotic and Lawful Really Means" thing on the D&D website my confusion is even worse. I'm used to the Path system in oWoD where if you were to design a path your morals could be... anything. Now how D&D defines it chaotic people don't value consistence but do value freedom and a sort of "following your gut" kinda thing. The problem is that this character values ritualistically following your senses. From how I understand it neutral is apathetic towards law and chaos. That's the last thing this character is.

[tainsouvra]

In general, the problem with alignments isn't that they aren't flexible enough, it's that they're so flexible that players start thinking they can do anything they want without it causing an alignment conflict. To go into your points of confusion...

I have a plan to make a character who is, essentially, chaotic evil. After reading the "What Chaotic and Lawful Really Means" thing on the D&D website my confusion is even worse. I'm used to the Path system in oWoD where if you were to design a path your morals could be... anything. Now how D&D defines it chaotic people don't value consistence but do value freedom and a sort of "following your gut" kinda thing.

Have you read the alignment rules? It sounds like you're confusing yourself by throwing all the information about the D&D system at once as a mish-mash against your WoD framework. That's going to be messy no matter what you read...just read and stick with this, you'll do fine:
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
...that's all there needs to be to being chaotic evil.

The problem is that this character values ritualistically following your senses.

I don't see how "ritualistically following your senses" necessarily changes your alignment, as it really just sounds like an explanation of one of the things that makes him so chaotic, not something that would make him respect authority.

From how I understand it neutral is apathetic towards law and chaos. That's the last thing this character is.

The character you're describing isn't neutral in the first place, I don't know how neutrality is a factor here...

[ArmorArmadillo]

You can be chaotic evil and help people: You see a pretty young maiden being mugged...do you walk by because you're selfish, or do you run a dagger through those thuggish bastards and walk off with the young ladies phone number (Because you're selfish)?

Alignment is as flexible as you make it. Chaotic and evil aren't restricted by morals or ethics, when it gets down to it they can do pretty much most of what you want. There's no need to be suicidal, you can be completely in control.

[averagejoe]

Don't get too worked up about it. A lot of people will tell you that the alignment system sucks, and don't use it, which is valid if that's what you want to do. However, if you are dedicated to using it, the basic trick is not to overthink it. Chaotic characters sometimes shut up in class. Evil characters sometimes don't kill babies. Think about it more as his core personality, not this constraint that dictates every one of his actions ever. If he feels chaotic evil, then he's chaotic evil. Of course, actions help define alignment, but he need not be "chaotic" in everything he does.

Just out of curiosity, if it is the case that he isn't apathetic toward law and chaos, then why is this alignment thing so tricky?

[Dervag]

One of the problems is that the way Wizards sets up the flavor text around the alignment system, it sounds like each alignment contains a bunch of different traits that logically ought to be separate. For instance, 'chaotics' are supposed to be both undisciplined and unconcerned with external laws except insofar as those laws might directly inconvenience them.

But you can have a disciplined person with a very consistent worldview, who will act predictably in a given situation (as a lawful would), who is also an anarchist who despises the state and all it stands for and thinks the world would be a better place if there were no external legal codes (which is a deeply chaotic perspective).

So you have to decide which is more important. I think that the tendency to go with one's gut feeling is less important than one's attitude towards external laws- a lawful person may be very intuitive and trust their gut while nonetheless being a disciplined, orderly person who follows laws simply because they are laws. Whereas a person may also be a logical thinker and yet be undisciplined and disorderly, with a penchant for ignoring laws where possible.

[Roderick_BR]

"this character values ritualistically following your senses"
That can be interpreted as "following your guts." Your character seems to rely on his first impression of things, trusting his instincts, instead of watching and pondering about something, and making plans.
Likewise, an experienced character could be lawful, and call his sense a form of
personal experience, like a battle hardened fighter that quickly makes plans as the situations are presented. It's just a matter of you and your DM to choose what it means.
For example, rangers and barbarians are usually chaotic, and they are the kind of people that'll follow their senses and instincts, instead of crafting plans like human wizards.

[nagora]

he problem is that this character values ritualistically following your senses. From how I understand it neutral is apathetic towards law and chaos. That's the last thing this character is.

"I don't need your stinking laws - my senses are all I need. I depend on no one else for my choices."

Sounds pretty chaotic to me.

Plus, neutral can be more than apathetic. It can be as strongly defined as any other alignment. For example: "Law and Chaos are delusions spread by philosophers and other quacks, and those who believe in them as solutions to all their ethical issues are deluded <spits>." is not an apathetic stance.

[Tower]

Chaotic characters aren't equally as likely to jump off a bridge

Chaos in the PHB implies
Freedom, Adapatbility, Flexibility, Recklessness, Resentment of Authority and Arbitary Actions.
This would support following your senses
you characters sounds more Neutral than evil to me though

On the Good to Evil (G2E) scale, Neutral is "Do what benefits me." while evil is "Kill and maim whenever I feel like hurting something for the hell of it." Belkar is evil, he kills often and enjoys it.
A neutral (G2E) would kill if necessary or makes things easier, but not go on killing sprees since Guards or others would start trying to arrest/kill him

Not trying to start an argument, I would see but Boba Fett as Chaotic Neutral and Darth Vader as Neutral Evil

[nagora]

Not trying to start an argument, I would see but Boba Fett as Chaotic Neutral and Darth Vader as Neutral Evil

Surely Vader's respect for the Emperor and the Empire is Lawful? Certainly, Palpatine's arguments to Anakin are all classics of Lawful Evil propaganda.

[Tengu]

Treat alignment as rough guidelines.

Or, if you have trouble deciding a character's alignment on the lawfulness scale, take the "pinch of salt" approach - if the character is serious, it's lawful, if it's silly (or destructive in case of evil), it's chaotic.

[Wulfram]

The Law/Chaos axis is silly. Just dump it if it gives you any problems - it's a rare occasion when it serves any purpose.

Or if you don't want to go that far, you can adopt a policy of "If in doubt, it's neutral". So the sneaky, underhanded and criminal types can be chaotic, while honourable and loyal Paladins can be lawful, and most people can ignore it.

[nagora]

The Law/Chaos axis is silly. Just dump it if it gives you any problems - it's a rare occasion when it serves any purpose.

Strange, in our groups Law/Chaos has always been more of a focus for conflict than Good/Evil. And in RL it has been the background for many major struggles.

[Stephen_E]

Strange, in our groups Law/Chaos has always been more of a focus for conflict than Good/Evil. And in RL it has been the background for many major struggles.

What RL conflicts would you consider to have a Law/Chaos background?

Stephen

[PinkysBrain]

The problem is that this character values ritualistically following your senses.

That doesn't mean anything.

[nagora]

What RL conflicts would you consider to have a Law/Chaos background?

Stephen

Forums rules make it tricky to discuss but I'd pick as one example the suffragette movement as one where the respect for authority was deemed less important than respecting individual rights.

[Charity]

Stephen

I would have said any occupation by a large (beurocratic) empire of a small relitively unsophisticated country/state.
The Roman occupation of Britain or Gaul would have been such to my mind.

Name a conflict between good and Evil, the absolutes used in D&D have no real equivelant in RL so any analogy will not bear up to real scrutiny


^ the suffragette movement is a better example than mine, as would have been many of the other civil rights struggles over the years, or indeed Indias move toward independance, I was thinking too historically, the contemary comparisons are clearer.

[Stephen_E]

:Originally Posted by Stephen_E
What RL conflicts would you consider to have a Law/Chaos background?

Forums rules make it tricky to discuss but I'd pick as one example the suffragette movement as one where the respect for authority was deemed less important than respecting individual rights.

Generally so long as you don't get into current political issues the Mods are OK. Also because we aren't discussing Good/Evil it's pretty safe.

By and large the suffragette movement didn't consider much of that authority "legitimate", and what they wanted was to have a diffferent place in that ordered society, not to opt out of it.

I would have said any occupation by a large (beurocratic) empire of a small relitively unsophisticated country/state.
The Roman occupation of Britain or Gaul would have been such to my mind.

That's a maybe. My limited knowledge of the Celtic Society is that while different to the Romans, it was in its own way a quite structured society. If so it would simply be a war over which ordered structure was going to control things. If they were a very individulistic society then I would tend to go with the Law/Chaos background.

I think a better case would be some of the trashing of native peoples by colonial powers (only the more anarchistic of the native societies).

Name a conflict between good and Evil, the absolutes used in D&D have no real equivelant in RL so any analogy will not bear up to real scrutiny

I'm unaware of any RL conflict that I'd consider to be remotely Good/Evil, by DnD standards or any other I'd accept. I didn't mean to imply that Good/Evil wars occurred rather than Law/Chaos. I simply couldn't think of any conflicts that I'd consider remotely along an alignment axis. Although as noted above, with thought, I would consider possibly a few of the colonial oppressions of native people to fit the bill.

I stress the "few" because the vast majority of native "barbarian" societies I'm aware of were quite "lawful". Yes, I do shake my head ruefully at the DnD "Barbarians must be non-Lawful" rule.

^ the suffragette movement is a better example than mine, as would have been many of the other civil rights struggles over the years, or indeed Indias move toward independance, I was thinking too historically, the contemary comparisons are clearer.

With the exception of some of the small groups within the larger movements, I'd largely disagree, as I mentioned in my response to Nagora's post, these groups were opposed to a ordered lawful society. They wanted a different ordered lawful society, or to change their position within that society.

There has been a move in many societies towards a more individulaistic society over time (and we may well see things drift back) but this has been a very incremental thing over centuries by and large. Not what you can really call a conflict IMO. See Nagora's original statement - "And in RL it has been the background for many major struggles".

Stephen

[Charity]

You make a decent point Stephen, I think I was too wrapped up in the 'freedom' issue....

Alignments are just not appropriate ways of describing whole societies, as they by there very nature tend to be 'Lawful', in fact alignment is an ugly clunky thing which generaly fails at it's intended purpose (to define character traits.)

[Stephen_E]

Alignments are just not appropriate ways of describing whole societies, as they by there very nature tend to be 'Lawful', in fact alignment is an ugly clunky thing which generaly fails at it's intended purpose (to define character traits.)

The Great Explosion by Eric Frank Russell has some lovely short stories of societies with DnD alignments.

The main purpose for alignments that I can see is determining the effects of spells, and placing a limited restriction on Clerics behaviours (must be within 1 step of God's). Otherwise it should only come up if someone is having their PC attempting wholesale genocide while claiming to be "good".

Stephen

[Wulfram]

Strange, in our groups Law/Chaos has always been more of a focus for conflict than Good/Evil. And in RL it has been the background for many major struggles.

And how was this enhanced by the presence of a mechanical alignment?

I certainly agree that a conflict which is divided on ideological lines, rather than simple Good vs Evil, can be more interesting, but to tie it to arbitrary and often self-contradictory concepts, like Law and Chaos, does nothing but confuse and distort.

You can interpret Law and Chaos to more coherent concepts like Order and Liberty, but that's really as much of a houserule as simply abolishing them. It also gives a lot of prominence and force to concepts which shouldn't necessarily have such significance in a medieval fantasy setting.

Remember that casting "Dictum", for example, kills people of the opposing alignment - so whatever definition you use, it needs to be pretty important. You don't want people dieing because they don't tidy their room.

[Citizen Joe]

Just go to your DM and say I'm not sure what my alignment is, but I'm just going to do stuff, you decide what alignment it is. Then make sure you consistently act the same way.

The way you describe it, you sound animal neutral, which is basically non-aligned. You also seem reactive and not pro-active. Those extreme alignments tend to be pro-active towards their goals.

[nagora]

By and large the suffragette movement didn't consider much of that authority "legitimate",

A classic Chaotic's complaint!

and what they wanted was to have a diffferent place in that ordered society, not to opt out of it.

But the central argument was about where to balance their society on the Law/Chaos axis. They wanted to increase individuals' (including for many, the rights of poor men) - their wider principle was one of devolving power down to people, rather than up to established authority figures including the King.

They weren't working to overthrow all forms of government, but they were arguing about the right of authority to have unquestioned respect.

I might also suggest the gun-lobby in America as a D&D Chaotic movement. The reasoning most of them claim for the 2nd amendment, after all, is that the people should have the power to overthrow authority if they have to. With the exception of some extremists, they're not calling for the abolition of all forms of govenment, but the argument is still about the point on the Law/Chaos axis a fair government should stand.

My limited knowledge of the Celtic Society is that while different to the Romans, it was in its own way a quite structured society.

You need to get away from this idea that all chaotics want to do away with society - that's as extreme a view as saying all Good people strive to live on sunbeams because of vegetable rights.

Celtic culture seems to have praised individuals who took personal responsibility and for whom their word was their bond. They regarded people who hid behind the spirit of the law rather than the letter, or who used their positions for personal gain with contempt and allowed women individual rights which, once the Romans stamped them out, would not be seen again in Europe for nine centuries.

But they did have leaders and they did live in groups with a structure, and owned slaves (who had been enslaved as punishment - I'm not sure that they had any concept of simply stealing people to be slaves). But then, they were real people and not D&D characters. Real people tend much more strongly towards TN than PCs do (odd, given how many people used to complain about how difficult it was to play TN).

[Starbuck_II]

One of the problems is that the way Wizards sets up the flavor text around the alignment system, it sounds like each alignment contains a bunch of different traits that logically ought to be separate. For instance, 'chaotics' are supposed to be both undisciplined and unconcerned with external laws except insofar as those laws might directly inconvenience them.

But you can have a disciplined person with a very consistent worldview, who will act predictably in a given situation (as a lawful would), who is also an anarchist who despises the state and all it stands for and thinks the world would be a better place if there were no external legal codes (which is a deeply chaotic perspective).

So you have to decide which is more important. I think that the tendency to go with one's gut feeling is less important than one's attitude towards external laws- a lawful person may be very intuitive and trust their gut while nonetheless being a disciplined, orderly person who follows laws simply because they are laws. Whereas a person may also be a logical thinker and yet be undisciplined and disorderly, with a penchant for ignoring laws where possible.

Or he is nuetral. Both chaotic and lawful.

[Matthew]

You need to get away from this idea that all chaotics want to do away with society - that's as extreme a view as saying all Good people strive to live on sunbeams because of vegetable rights.

Celtic culture seems to have praised individuals who took personal responsibility and for whom their word was their bond. They regarded people who hid behind the spirit of the law rather than the letter, or who used their positions for personal gain with contempt and allowed women individual rights which, once the Romans stamped them out, would not be seen again in Europe for nine centuries.

But they did have leaders and they did live in groups with a structure, and owned slaves (who had been enslaved as punishment - I'm not sure that they had any concept of simply stealing people to be slaves). But then, they were real people and not D&D characters. Real people tend much more strongly towards TN than PCs do (odd, given how many people used to complain about how difficult it was to play TN).

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I suspect that particular view of Celtic culture to be a product of romanticism and Roman propaganda revolving around the 'noble savage' archetype. the Romans were pretty big on the value of individual accomplishment as well, not to mention their concept of manhood was intrinsically related to honourable behaviour.

[Jayabalard]

Alignment is a reflection of the character... it does not control your actions. To figure out your alignment, go through some scenarios in your mind, and work out his alignment based on how he would actually acts in those scenarios. Never worry about acting based on your alignment.

[Starbuck_II]

Alignment is a reflection of the character... it does not control your actions. To figure out your alignment, go through some scenarios in your mind, and work out his alignment based on how he would actually acts in those scenarios. Never worry about acting based on your alignment.

Unless, you are a Paladin: than you better worry.

[Matthew]

Alignment is a reflection of the character... it does not control your actions. To figure out your alignment, go through some scenarios in your mind, and work out his alignment based on how he would actually acts in those scenarios. Never worry about acting based on your alignment.

Absolutely.

Unless, you are a Paladin: than you better worry.

Heh, ideally not.

[DeathQuaker]

I have a plan to make a character who is, essentially, chaotic evil. After reading the "What Chaotic and Lawful Really Means" thing on the D&D website my confusion is even worse.

That article is helpful about overcoming some bad stereotypes about the "ethical" alignment paths, but like some posters before me, I feel it's important to point to the SRD to remind you the basics of alignment first.

And always remember to start at the beginning, where it states:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

So no. Alignment is as flexible as you allow it to be. It is a guideline, not, just as the rules state, a straitjacket.

I'm used to the Path system in oWoD where if you were to design a path your morals could be... anything.

Paths and Alignment are not the same thing, and trying to compare them could be the source of a great deal of your confusion. If you feel a strong urge to compare oWoD, then "Nature" is closest to Alignment, except Alignment is even more broadly defined than Nature.

Now how D&D defines it chaotic people don't value consistence but do value freedom and a sort of "following your gut" kinda thing. The problem is that this character values ritualistically following your senses.

If your character believes that following your instincts is the most important thing to do, then that's a chaotic belief. Having a consistent belief is no more chaotic than lawful... it's more what your beliefs are that defines your "ethical" alignment. If you believe in order and tradition you're more likely drawn towards Lawfulness; if you believe in instinct and individualism you're more likely drawn towards Chaos.

From how I understand it neutral is apathetic towards law and chaos.

Not at all. Again, check your rules:

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel.

That doesn't mean apathy. Having a "normal respect for authority" means that regarding the figures they identify as authority figures (be they parents or government reps or clergy or whoever they personally regard as "legitimate authority"), they will treat such persons with general courtesy and not try to embarrass or discredit them, but likewise won't go out of their way to impress or follow the letter of their command.

It's easier for a person to stick to the general rules and mores of their society most of the time... but not always. If someone they regard as an authority figure -- say, a parent, tells them to do something, they'll probably do it out of loyalty or a general sense that listening to your parents is the right thing to do, BUT if they feel the parent (or other authority figure) is being unreasonable in their demands or treatment, then they may disregard or even actively rebel against the parent. I would say neutral person more likely judges a given situation and decides whether to stick to discipline and tradition or strike out their own path on a case by case basis. What makes them neutral is not whether they do or don't perform lawful (or chaotic acts) but that they do either act based on the need of the moment, not an overall core ethic.

Addendum: the thing about Lawfuls being "consistent" is probably where a sticking point is. Put it this way: a Lawful person is more likely to consider precedent when choosing an action, or perhaps prefers routine. A Chaotic person may have a "consistent" core belief -- but he is not concerned with expressing that belief the same way every time. It's possible in fact that that belief causes him to behave in one way one time and differently another, at least on the surface.

A neutral person's behavior may vary -- perhaps like a Chaotic's -- but if so, it is not out of a core visionary belief in "freedom", but out of what suits their needs. In otherwords, their "core belief" is in taking care of themselves and those they care about in the present. "Chaos" and "Law" are the extremes; "Neutrality" is merely the middle between the two.

I'm going to stop editing my statements now; I know I'm not expressing myself well, so sorry if I'm not making any sense. It's way past my bedtime!

[Sebastian]

What RL conflicts would you consider to have a Law/Chaos background?

Stephen

The french revolution.

or the Protestant's reformation.

[Dervag]

Chaos in the PHB implies
Freedom, Adapatbility, Flexibility, Recklessness, Resentment of Authority and Arbitary Actions.

But do all those traits always go together?

A person may be an obsessive-compulsive planner who always plans and is about as adaptable as a dodo bird, but nonetheless resent authority figures. Or they may be a cheerful, law-abiding 'good citizen' and nonetheless be extremely flexible and adaptable.

What RL conflicts would you consider to have a Law/Chaos background?

Stephen

Most revolutionary wars.

It is rarely the case that an entire RL government is clearly Good-aligned or Evil-aligned, and is rarely the case that a rebellious group opposing that government is clearly Good-aligned or Evil-aligned.

But, to take the American Revolution as an example, the conflict was on the Law/Chaos axis. On the one hand, you had a Lawful British government that expected the colonists to obey British law because it was British law, regardless of whether the colonists had any say in them.

On the other hand, you had a mix of Neutrals, Chaotics, and Lawfuls (probably mostly Neutral) in the colonies who believed that the British laws did not make sense given the actual conditions in the colonies, that the British were being stubborn and exploitative in ignoring the colonists' protests to that effect, and that British efforts to enforce the laws in question went beyond the powers their government could legitimately claim over "free Englishmen."

It is not the case that the colonists were Good-aligned and the British Evil-aligned, or vice versa. The real conflict was lawful/chaotic, not good/evil.

[Celts] regarded people who hid behind the spirit of the law rather than the letter,

Are you sure you don't have that backwards?