Anonymouswizard's Random Banter #227 and Free Cup of Tea

[Fyraltari]

It is also worth repeating that D&D's attempt to try and fit the entire breadth and variety of the entirity of all individuals across the spectrum of all sapient/sentient creatures of that did, does, can or might exist into the nine conveniant pidgeon-holes was a futile endeavour (as evidenced by every single discussion on placing an alignment on a non-D&D character or person has ever shown). D&D's alignment is a prescriptive, not descriptive system that works better the less attention you actually pay to it.

(The fact that I personally actually DO fit into ones of those holes 99% of the time merely proves that a stopped clock is right twice a day.)

Maybe it’s an ‘astrological sign’ situation where the descriptions are vague enough to fit anyone and everyone depending on how you feel at the moment.

[Aotrs Commander]

And the alignment system in WFRP1 is notorious among its players for being ditched within, in most cases, minutes of discovering its existence. If I remember rightly, it was a less "sophisticated" system than D&D (linear rather than biaxial) but it also added nothing to the game or, really, the setting.

Which in some ways is a shame, at least on the Law/Chaos axis. That was a period where the Law gods, the direct counterpart to the Chaos gods, were still openly kicking about. Throwing out the whole good/evil business and focussing on Law vs Chaos as the important cosmic forces could have been interesting. But they never really did much work on developing the forces of Law as their own thing, they fell into the background, and we just ended up with "Chaos = Evil"... and all too frequently, "Evil = Chaos" instead. Never mind.

Not only that, but the Law aspects were ALSO frequently Evil as well. It was basically pointless in the main.

[Jasdoif]

If you have the core rulebooks, they will explain the alignment system for that system.

None of the ones I've read do a particularly good job talking about Law and Chaos, though. To get a more thorough treatment, I'd recommend WotC's 3.5 article on the subject, followed by some of the Giant's posts about it (and alignment in general).

Spoiler: Specifically....

Show

....the D&D definition of Lawful has little to nothing to do with law enforcement. To think that Lawful always means "obeying the written law" is a gross misunderstanding of the D&D definition of the term.

For example, think of formal duels—the "pistols at dawn" kind. Such events are undoubtedly Lawful affairs—they have strict codes, elaborate rules, and concern themselves mostly with symbolic honor. All hallmarks of Lawful behavior when contrasted with, say, a drunken brawl. However, at the time Aaron Burr shot Hamilton, they were illegal in the United States. People who participated in such duels were abiding by a formal code of ethics and behavior that was in opposition to democratically passed law. Lawful behavior can be made illegal in a given jurisdiction, but that doesn't spontaneously change the nature of the act in a cosmological sense.

I've used this example before, but if a paladin walks into the orc's swamp to do battle, he is not suddenly bound to obey the Orc King's laws or lose his paladinhood. It is entirely possible to have a code that you believe supersedes the written law wherever you are and still be considered Lawful.

I've often said that a lot of confusion would have been avoided if they had simply called it Ordered instead of Lawful. "Ordered Good" leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation.

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

In the end, alignment is a murky cocktail of temperament, goals, actions, and results. There is no clearly defined formula for which of those counts the most.

It's tough for those who spend all their time talking about D&D to remember that most players are very casual and don't think too deeply about this stuff at all. For that sort of player, picking an alignment is a great introduction to the idea of having a group of characters with diverse motivations. We all take for granted that you have to decide what your character believes, but remember that D&D gets taught to kids who haven't even really figured out what they themselves believe yet. Left to their own devices, they're unlikely to delve deep into their fictional character's philosophies. Alignment is good for starting that conversation. It's also a good way to keep beginning players on the general sort of path of heroics without them burning down the village for kicks.

Then, once they've had a campaign or two under their belt, alignment provides an easy stepping stone for stretching their roleplaying muscles. You may have noticed that most players—especially younger players—tend to play characters that trend toward their own personal alignment, or else some sort of wish fulfillment variation thereof. But after a few different characters like that, there's a natural tendency to want to try something new. Alignment gives a great way to channel that feeling into expanding their roleplaying repetoire by giving them easy-to-understand options that they can pick from. Always played Chaotic Good? Try Lawful Good. Or Lawful Neutral. It's the sort of thing that can really push a player into trying new things, way more than a new race or class can.

Eventually, a player will master switching back and forth between all the alignments and will be a reasonably conversant roleplayer. Then they can move on to playing against alignment stereotypes, or if everyone's at the same level, they can try a more complex alignment system or even abandon the concept altogether. The exact layout and mechanics of the system is sort of beside the point. I do think that the alignment system is much more robust and flexible than most people give it credit for, which is one of the reasons that I spend so much energy dealing with it in OOTS.

But in terms of teaching how to roleplay, it's a great aid. Which is why I think published D&D should always have it; not only is it part of the culture of D&D anyway, but D&D is basically the "training wheels" of roleplaying. If there's a system that can help train new players about how to roleplay, it should be in there. More experience players can always ignore it, but new players won't know to add it in.

Do other games need alignment? Not really, though some sort of structure for roleplaying decisions isn't a bad thing.

[DataNinja]

Oh no! Spontaneous Summon Banana!

(Does this work with other forum members? We could get a bigger party in here. )

[el minster]

I think it's better for Law & Chaos to be secondary to Good & Evil, so a LG paladin and a CG rogue can work together better than the paladin and a LE necromancer can.

[Jasdoif]

Oh no! Spontaneous Summon Banana!

Wait...Is it still a summon if I bring myself? Is simply walking around sufficient to make me a summoner?

[Anonymouswizard]

I like the inherent implication of Lamentation's of the Flame Princess alignment system. Clerics are Lawful, Magic-users are Chaotic, and almost everybody else is Neutral. Alignment has a lot more to do with where your mystical mojo comes from and who's pulling your strings, it says nothing about personality or morality.

[Bartmanhomer]

If you have the core rulebooks, they will explain the alignment system for that system.

No need. There's a website for the alignment system.

[DataNinja]

Wait...Is it still a summon if I bring myself? Is simply walking around sufficient to make me a summoner?

Sure. It sounds cooler that way. "I henceforth have summoned myself upon your doorstep!"

[Peelee]

Sure. It sounds cooler that way. "I henceforth have summoned myself upon your doorstep!"

Seconded. Plus, I get to say stuff like "I hereby dub Jasdoif self-summoner!" Now don't do it too much, you'll go blind.

[el minster]

What is spontaneous summon banana?

[Aotrs Commander]

I think it's better for Law & Chaos to be secondary to Good & Evil, so a LG paladin and a CG rogue can work together better than the paladin and a LE necromancer can.

While in general in terms of gaming, I think from experience, it is far better to have Evil party of not-Evil parties (and y'know, have plenty of Evil parties scattered about for that itch; seriously, we have, like, three on the books if you just count the ones I personally run and not the other two or three we've done in the past) and not to mix the twain...




Conceptually?

LE Necromancer and paladins working together is something I would totally get behind. Being, like, the one LE Necromancer at magical Paladin school or something, not that that very specific idea has totally not had headspace or anything.




Edit: The FRACK Shapeways. I uploaded a version of the Liche's Wrath as a multipart kit and a solid version for the sake of comparison, to laregly see how much more expensive it was. In the chepa material, the kit is version is twice as expensive (?!) as the assembled model in the cheap material, but the assembled model is +50% and +100% more expensive thatn the kit version in the detail materials. The ACTUAL frack.

I HATE that the very debliteraly and shameless hid their pricing algorhythms, meaning this sort of experimentation is NECESSARY, because you have NO IDEA what stuff costs until you upload it. I wasted half-an-hour uploading hollowed version of the Holwing Void to find it was 8p cheaper in the chepa material and not at all in detial material.

[Sermil]

Sure. It sounds cooler that way. "I henceforth have summoned myself upon your doorstep!"

I would occasionally ask my kids "I have traveled through time from the previous century to ask you this question: Do you want pancakes or waffles for breakfast?"

[el minster]

I would occasionally ask my kids "I have traveled through time from the previous century to ask you this question: Do you want pancakes or waffles for breakfast?"

That's absolutely hilarious : ).

[Jasdoif]

What is spontaneous summon banana?

Apparently, that's what we're going to call it when I quote The Giant outside of the Order of the Stick section of the forum....Peelee's experiments in magic have altered the multiverse as we knew it.

Conceptually?

LE Necromancer and paladins working together is something I would totally get behind. Being, like, the one LE Necromancer at magical Paladin school or something, not that that very specific idea has totally not had headspace or anything.

"You realize he was dead because you killed him, right? And now that we can use his reanimated body instead of risking the death of someone else, you're complaining? I thought you paladins were supposed to care about preserving life."

Admittedly, it feels like there's even more mileage to get out of playing against the "necromancers are inherently evil" shtick at the same time....

[PopeLinus1]

I would occasionally ask my kids "I have traveled through time from the previous century to ask you this question: Do you want pancakes or waffles for breakfast?"

Spoiler

Show

[el minster]

Apparently, that's what we're going to call it when I quote The Giant outside of the Order of the Stick section of the forum....Peelee's experiments in magic have altered the multiverse as we knew it.

How do you use the spell?

[Sermil]

Spoiler

Show

Yes, that's exactly where I got it from. Good comedians borrow, great comedians steal. And there there's me...

[Aotrs Commander]

Apparently, that's what we're going to call it when I quote The Giant outside of the Order of the Stick section of the forum....Peelee's experiments in magic have altered the multiverse as we knew it.

"You realize he was dead because you killed him, right? And now that we can use his reanimated body instead of risking the death of someone else, you're complaining? I thought you paladins were supposed to care about preserving life."

Admittedly, it feels like there's even more mileage to get out of playing against the "necromancers are inherently evil" shtick at the same time....

More like: "Oh no, if we don't seal the radiation leak everyone on the planet will die! I'll have to go in there, even though it will kill me! But I must sacrifice myself for the good of the people!"

"Or I can just animate that dead guard over there."

"..."

"Y'know, that one you ran through...?"

"...

Dammit, stop being so useful!"

"No."



Plus the delightful bonding moment when they team-up to totally lawfully screw some chaotic nut-job.

[Fyraltari]

I think it's better for Law & Chaos to be secondary to Good & Evil, so a LG paladin and a CG rogue can work together better than the paladin and a LE necromancer can.

That may be more due* to the fact that Evil characters have a hard time working together with anyone. Especially other Evil characters. Compare the dynamics of The Order of the Stick and Team Evil, for example.

Apparently, that's what we're going to call it when I quote The Giant outside of the Order of the Stick section of the forum....Peelee's experiments in magic have altered the multiverse as we knew it.

Does that mean I get to blame Peelee for everything wrong that happened after 2014 or did it work retroactively too?

How do you use the spell?

You type ‘Summon Banana!’.
It’s good form to preface it with ‘I think I remember The Giant saying [insert claim here] but I can’t find the post in the index’ or something to that effect.



*That feels wonky. May more be due?

[Peelee]

Does that mean I get to blame Peelee for everything wrong that happened after 2014 or did it work retroactively too?

Imean, I already get that, so one more won't hurt.

*That feels wonky. May more be due?

Due more, I'd say.

[el minster]

Imean, I already get that, so one more won't hurt.

Due more, I'd say.

I don't think Peelee deserves that, he's a good guy and a good mod.

[Aotrs Commander]

That may be more due* to the fact that Evil characters have a hard time working together with anyone. Especially other Evil characters. Compare the dynamics of The Order of the Stick and Team Evil, for example.

*eyeglow raise*

Not all evil creatures are Skeletor or Saw Boss (or Xykon or Belkar), y'know. It's a dangerous generalisation to assume that's true. Even Théoden only said "OFT Evil will Evil mar." I recall was it not one of the Gian'ts articles pointing out how he'd seen a group of aventurers come a complete cropper once because they failed to understand that two of the BBEGs they were trying to pit against each other were just, like, friends.



The E=>G axis is just more often used because its so much easier to conceptually grasp (D&D having habitually done a poor job of defining Law and Chaos in more than one edition, if not all, editions.)

[Fyraltari]

*eyeglow raise*

Not all evil creatures are Skeletor or Saw Boss (or Xykon or Belkar), y'know. It's a dangerous generalisation to assume that's true. Even Théoden only said "OFT Evil will Evil mar." I recall was it not one of the Gian'ts articles pointing out how he'd seen a group of aventurers come a complete cropper once because they failed to understand that two of the BBEGs they were trying to pit against each other were just, like, friends.



The E=>G axis is just more often used because its so much easier to conceptually grasp (D&D having habitually done a poor job of defining Law and Chaos in more than one edition, if not all, editions.)

Look I am the first one to say that dividing people (or even sufficiently complex fictional characters) into Good and Evil just plainly doesn’t work, but if we accept to use D&D’s alignment framework, then, there are alignments for characters willing to do what’s best for them even at the expanse of others and those are CN, TN and LN. Evil characters go the step beyond and are willing to do what’s best for them especially at the expanse of others. To be evil is, fundamentally, to be so self-center that you are incapable (or outright refuse) to function well with others. Sure an evil character may have a few other people they value and call their friend or loved one, but on the whole they are unlikely to work well with anybody. It can happen but it’s unlikely.

There’s a reason evil necromancers surround themselves with rotting mind-slaves.

Edit: also, you do realize that when Théoden said that, he wasn’t talking about evil people working with good people but evil people fighting each other’s due to their inability to work together, more precisely Saruman’s backstabbing Sauron instantly upon openly joining him. And later Sam and Frodo are saved by orcs helpfully killing each other, TWICE.

[PopeLinus1]

Yes, that's exactly where I got it from. Good comedians borrow, great comedians steal. And there there's me...

I figured, but I didn't want to accuse.

[Aotrs Commander]

Look I am the first one to say that dividing people (or even sufficiently complex fictional characters) into Good and Evil just plainly doesn’t work, but if we accept to use D&D’s alignment framework, then, there are alignments for characters willing to do what’s best for them even at the expanse of others and those are CN, TN and LN. Evil characters go the step beyond and are willing to do what’s best for them especially at the expanse of others. To be evil is, fundamentally, to be so self-center that you are incapable (or outright refuse) to function well with others. Sure an evil character may have a few other people they value and call their friend or loved one, but on the whole they are unlikely to work well with anybody. It can happen but it’s unlikely.

There’s a reason evil necromancers surround themselves with rotting mind-slaves.

And yet I can work with people perfectly fine, and I can assure you, I am quite thoroughly Evil; the fact that while in places like this I present a front of polite and often self-deprecating affability does nothing to change that. You just don't get to see what goes on behind my eyeglows.

As much as it might pain people to be faced with it, the idea that Evil can't work together is rooted in nothing more substantial than the belief that is what allows good to win, because the idea that an Evil that co-operated as smoothly as they would like to believe that good does stands a very good chance of actually, y'know WINNING. It's one of those dangerously circular mindsets humans like to get themselves into, along with "I like this thing, therefore it cannot be Evil;" which of course in fiction inevitably leads to Evil Can't Have Nice Things and in real life to... Well, I'm sure you can think of examples without my help, can't you?

Edit: also, you do realize that when Théoden said that, he wasn’t talking about evil people working with good people but evil people fighting each other’s due to their inability to work together, more precisely Saruman’s backstabbing Sauron instantly upon openly joining him. And later Sam and Frodo are saved by orcs helpfully killing each other, TWICE.

And I repeat, OFT - not ALWAYS.

Just because a lot of Evil acts that way doens't mean it all does.

(In the same way that because the majority of humans are petty, wilfully stupid factionalised incompetants doesn't mean all humans are.)

The ones that don't? Are the most dangerous ones of all.

[Peelee]

I figured, but I didn't want to accuse.

I find that slamming down a heavy object and pointing with great dramatic flair while telling a deeply resonant "J'ACCUSE!" helps make accusations just more fun for everyone involved.

[el minster]

I find that slamming down a heavy object and pointing with great dramatic flair while telling a deeply resonant "J'ACCUSE!" helps make accusations just more fun for everyone involved.

If the heavy object is a book you can then make a joke about throwing the book at him/her.

[Jasdoif]

Does that mean I get to blame Peelee for everything wrong that happened after 2014 or did it work retroactively too?

None of the myriad things Peelee messed up prior to 2014 were retroactively updated, if that's what you're asking.

*That feels wonky. May more be due?

Personally, I'd sidestep it with "More likely, that's due to...."

Look I am the first one to say that dividing people (or even sufficiently complex fictional characters) into Good and Evil just plainly doesnÂ’t work, but if we accept to use D&DÂ’s alignment framework, then, there are alignments for characters willing to do whatÂ’s best for them even at the expanse of others and those are CN, TN and LN. Evil characters go the step beyond and are willing to do whatÂ’s best for them especially at the expanse of others. To be evil is, fundamentally, to be so self-center that you are incapable (or outright refuse) to function well with others. Sure an evil character may have a few other people they value and call their friend or loved one, but on the whole they are unlikely to work well with anybody. It can happen but itÂ’s unlikely.

Even overlooking how alignment, as a set categories for general behavior, doesn't reflect all specific cases; and how D&D is about exceptional characters doing exceptional things, and so the unlikely tends to happen....Evil people are entirely capable of functionally well with others. The defining feature of Evil is certainly the willingness to inflict harm on anyone if it suits their ends, but "their ends" is the same sort complicated-and-often-contradictory sense of desires that any sapient mind has. An Evil person who enjoys the company of another person is going to have that person's well-being as a priority, two Evil people with similar goals and complementary strengths aren't likely to undercut their own plans by turning on each other, etc.

How dramatically this shifts if the situation changes is another matter; but these kind of things can last a really long time....

[SZbNAhL]

I find that slamming down a heavy object and pointing with great dramatic flair while telling a deeply resonant "J'ACCUSE!" helps make accusations just more fun for everyone involved.

No no, you have to fling a folder onto the table so that your evidence spills out in a perfect fan.

Thesis completed and submitted, by the way. Thanks for all the well-wishes.