Alignment - because we ...ing can't let it pass

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:16 pm

How is 'might accomplish the same thing in a different way' at all a useful description of a character's ethos?

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:19 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:How is 'might accomplish the same thing in a different way' at all a useful description of a character's ethos?

Whom are you quoting?

ggroy · Post by **ggroy** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:24 pm

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:35 pm

hogarth wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:How is 'might accomplish the same thing in a different way' at all a useful description of a character's ethos?
Whom are you quoting?

I was paraphrasing you:

hogarth wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:
I don't know enough about Bin Laden to judge; maybe Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. Note: being consistent in your actions doesn't preclude being clever.
So what does being consistent preclude if it does not preclude changing up your actions?
If one were in the exact same situation twice, one would be likely to act in the same way.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:46 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:How is 'might accomplish the same thing in a different way' at all a useful description of a character's ethos?

If it's not useful for you, don't use it. But I find it helpful to say:

Lawful Good = consistent and good
Chaotic Good = inconsistent and good
Lawful Evil = consistent and evil
Chaotic Evil = inconsistent and evil

It's bizarre that people are implying that that means that all chaotic beings are stupid or all lawful beings are robots. Bullshit. You don't get kicked out of the "lawful" club for acting "neutral" some of the time just like you don't get kicked out of the "good" club for acting "neutral" some of the time.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:06 pm

So, we've demonstrated the point that the Law/Chaos axis is dumb and reaching consensus on what they mean is almost always an exercise in futility. If you have a different idea of Law/Chaos than your DM and want to argue your case, you're SOL.

I think part of the problem is that Law and Chaos are supposed to be universal forces, but are defined in how you react to city ordinances and other cultures and bullshit stuff like 'predictable' or 'spontaneous'.

Personally, it'd be easier to swallow the idea of Law (TM) if there were anything about it to actually justify the capital letter. All Lawful has going for it is some planes which have a very mechanical appearance. There's no universal set of laws, written in fire on 10-mile high golden gates, for planar travelers to bring word of back to their people, which will be so amazing that everyone would see their inherent worth and adopt them, and all people that break the Laws would be Chaotic. Which would be fine, there'd be an agreed-upon system.

But I think Law is a, for want of a better word, human idea. There aren't any laws except for what we (or, in the case of DnD world, sentient beings (or deities) make). I'd be down with renaming it Order and just calling it a physical force of the universe, having a ying-yang effect with Chaos. Spells and effects which use the energies from it could still be there (for the most part), but it'd be ignored as having any universal meaning on behavior or ethics.

If you wanted to have Laws, you could totally do that. You could have the Laws which govern magic and, for want of a better word, physics, described on mile-high iron slabs, in shining letters which may always be understood by any who gaze upon them. You could also have the ordinary laws which say, "You must do a weapons check at the city gates. Do not murder, do not steal, don't counterfeit any coins."

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:06 pm

So if you don't get kicked out of club Lawful for behaving Neutrally, how is Lawful more consistent than Neutral? For that matter, how would one be less consistently inconsistent to the point that you could tell the difference between Neutral and Chaotic?

-Username17

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:10 pm

hogarth wrote:
Quantumboost wrote:Lawful as "deterministic" and Chaotic as "nondeterministic" is a bad definition.
I won't use it then. Problem solved!

Except that that's exactly what you *said* you used some of the time. Right here:

But for the cases I do use it, I use the following interpretation:
Lawful = likely to behave in a predictable way (all things being equal)
Chaotic = not likely to behave in a predictable way (all things being equal)
Good = likely to behave mercifully (all things being equal)
Evil = likely to behave cruelly (all things being equal)

Followed up by:

So what does being consistent preclude if it does not preclude changing up your actions?
If one were in the exact same situation twice, one would be likely to act in the same way.

If you're taking context like "the enemy predicting what you'll do" into account, that reduces to Chaotic either randomly or pseudo-randomly determining what they'll do, and Lawful not using random or pseudo-random methods. That gets into the "one or the other is less effective" situation I described previously.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:19 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:So if you don't get kicked out of club Lawful for behaving Neutrally, how is Lawful more consistent than Neutral? For that matter, how would one be less consistently inconsistent to the point that you could tell the difference between Neutral and Chaotic?

-Username17

You honestly can't comprehend the idea of a spectrum of behaviour?

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:02 pm

I could totally see there being some plane that calls their team Chaos, and some other plane that calls their team Law, and ideally those names will be somewhat fitting as well. Law team comes from a very hierarchical society on a very stagnant plane with rules for nearly everything, and a plan that they insist others follow as well. Chaos team comes from a realm that is constantly in flux and an anarchical "society" which has very few precepts other than hating team Law and wanting to tear em down whenever possible. Chaos wants to transform the Lawful plane to make it a plane of flux like their own. Law wants to transform the Chaotic plane into another predictable plane of constancy like their own.

Each with their own set of beliefs and such that they sponsor clerics and outsiders to go forth and fight for their beliefs. They could even have some partnerships to teams Evil and Good in the name of fighting their nemesis.

Unfortunately DnD continues the hopeless path of trying to make believe that there is some sort of objective Law or Chaos. It is foolhardy at best. Rather than having a player say "Hey, I'm Lawful" it should be more like "Hey, I'm siding with Team Lawful."

I think team Evil and Good would do well to follow that example as well. Not actually force players and DMs to make judgments about whether someone is somehow objectively good or evil, instead simply note if they somehow owe allegiance to one side or the other. If they are totally free agents then by all means be listed as Neutral.

It's so damned easy to do this and it sacrifices none of the entertainment or dynamics of conflict between the planes. *sigh* So naturally it will never happen with retards behind the helm of DnD.

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:06 pm

I find the whole thing annoying, because In The Beginning, Law really did just mean "Team Virtue and Light" whereas Chaos really did just mean "Team Madness and Fury." So you had demons on one side and angels on the other, but the categorization also let you reasonably align other things like fairies and elementals sometimes.

( And yes, no "Good" or "Evil" per se either. )

Kobajagrande · Post by **Kobajagrande** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:59 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: Please define Lawful and Chaotic in such a manner as a Lawful person would be compelled to stab a Chaotic person in the face over the distinction and also that neither Lawful nor Chaotic meant "ineffective."

Lawful = Conservative and Chaotic = Liberal.

Which makes Neutral... I don't know, Christian Democrat or something.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:09 pm

Kobajagrande wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: Please define Lawful and Chaotic in such a manner as a Lawful person would be compelled to stab a Chaotic person in the face over the distinction and also that neither Lawful nor Chaotic meant "ineffective."
Lawful = Conservative and Chaotic = Liberal.

Which makes Neutral... I don't know, Christian Democrat or something.

Neutral = Moderate.

If we only deal with Law and Chaos in the case of extraplanar beings, then it's easy to define Lawful as rigid, unchanging, precise, reliable. On the other hand, Chaotic becomes protean, mercurial, spontaneous, anarchic.

I've always seen a Chaotic bent as "might save your life, might steal your car." If you're CG, then you lean towards the former, if you're CE, then you lean towards the latter. But both are viable in tandem. A CG character might jack your car to say, take you to the hospital or knock you out if you try to drive drunk or something. A CE character will steal your car, run you over with it, then take you to the hospital so they can do it again when you heal.

Lawful is a little less fluid (natch). A Lawful character usually follows a detailed code of conduct, like chivalry or bushido. This isn't to say a Neutral or Chaotic character would not, but Lawful characters are more likely to swallow the Kool-Aid completely. An LG character will use that to guide his goodness, while an LE character will pervert the rules to suit his needs.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 pm

Kobajagrande wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: Please define Lawful and Chaotic in such a manner as a Lawful person would be compelled to stab a Chaotic person in the face over the distinction and also that neither Lawful nor Chaotic meant "ineffective."
Lawful = Conservative and Chaotic = Liberal.

Ugh. Folks seriously need to get on the bandwagon that there is no useful definition of lawful and chaotic as a description of some self-sufficient ideology.

Law=code of conduct is equally useless. Someone like the Heath Ledger Joker could operate from their own personal code of conduct and still be a self-proclaimed agent of Chaos. In fact it is rare to find someone who doesn't have their own personal code of conduct. There are things you will do and things you won't.

Liberal vs. Conservative is especially bad since many people will fall into both liberal and conservative camps depending upon what is the issue at hand. Liberals in one region are conservatives in another. Hell, in the U.S. the terms are totally meaningless since the major parties are each conservative on some issues and liberal in others.

If you want to set up some sort of political polarity between law and chaos then go all out. Despotism versus Anarchy (maybe not the perfect polarity, but you catch my drift).

Most importantly is that Liberal and Conservative have the same abbreviation as Law versus Chaos, but you have them reversed!
L vs C, oh noes!

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:20 am

My thinking is that Lawful beings should view Chaotic beings like people would Aberrations: extremely wrong things that shouldn't be happening or exist and should be stopped as soon as possible. Lawful things just plain shouldn't be able to understand a Chaotic thing. And Chaotic beings should see Lawful beings as doing things for no seeming reason that they can understand and dangerous since they can't be understood and start attacking you for no reason and as such should be stopped in order to keep themselves alive.

One idea I had for this (not fully fleshed out and being made up as I write it out here) was that there was some sort of natural law (in the same way is the difference between natural rights [e.g. right not to be killed] and legal rights [e.g. consumer rights]). Then, most people have some sort of instinctive feeling as to which actions break the natural laws or not like a legal conscience. So, for example, in a fantasy setting it may be against the natural laws to go around naked. So, people may feel extremely uncomfortable doing so and things like bikinis or nudist areas just don't happen. This is in addition to their moral conscience which is the instinctive feeling as to what is good or evil.

So, you could have Lawfulness having a highly developed legal conscience. They may or may not ignore the legal rights since they can see them as obfuscating the natural laws or sometimes breaking the natural laws.

However, Chaotic people don't give a shit about natural laws. Whether they deliberately break them or just don't have that legal conscience doesn't matter, but their behaviour isn't affected by them. Again, they may follow legal laws because it is much easier to live outside of jail and it is easier to fit into society, but they will do whatever they want.

Neutral people have some legal conscience but it can be forced down by societal constructs, by their moral conscience or it just not being that strong. They will try to follow the natural laws where they can and feel bad when they don't.

To make sure that Chaotic people won't follow all the natural laws because they are just common sense and morals, at least some of these 'natural laws' must be bullshit ones that force some behaviour and get in the way. This can be done since this is a fantasy world. So, having a natural law of... err... only killing to eat means that Lawful people must eat at least a bit of everything they kill. Stupid, gets in the way, but in some perverted way it makes some sense. So, Lawful people will make sure to eat a finger or so off a dead body, Neutral people will do the same for animals but Chaotic people won't bother or will pretend to in order to fit in. Things like not wearing red, men not wearing silk or gold and so on. Oh, and not killing can't be a natural law.

So, Lawful people aren't really more effective than Chaotic people since they can both be erratic, both have personal codes of conduct and both follow or break all the legal rules that don't apply to their personal codes. Lawful (and to some extent Neutral) just have a few extra arbitrary restrictions. The Law-Chaos continuum is how much you follow these natural laws just because they are natural laws.

Unfortunately this whole thing doesn't make sense. It just makes Lawful people almost OCD-like in having to do all the weird things like the people that get looked at funny for tapping every fencepost as they go by. Well, actually, it makes everyone like that except for Chaotic people.

Possibly okay in a fantasy setting where everyone can be slightly crazy and can make sure that things like a gold economy can work (e.g. natural law that use gold as a currency- using other things or barter would only be between Chaotic people or in Chaotic areas). However it does have the benefit of it being universal and something that affects everyone and can be explained.

Kobajagrande · Post by **Kobajagrande** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:00 am

clikml wrote: Most importantly is that Liberal and Conservative have the same abbreviation as Law versus Chaos, but you have them reversed!
L vs C, oh noes!

This is your most important counter-argument? Wow. You have courage trying to present your opinion like it matters, I'll give you that.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:52 pm

Lawful vs. Chaotic as 'use natural laws' vs. 'use chaos magic' might work, but it would require a radically different setting from D&D. Being lawful would be a mode of operation where you use a sort of 'natural science' and chaos would be 'breaking rules'. Chaos might actually damage the inherent fabric of the multiverse, causing highly chaotic regions to unravel and become Limbo or Far Realm like. Law, as well as developing more natural teche nology, would try to enforce a stabilizing effect on the multiverse.

This is a common enough trope in fantasy (and D&D) that it wouldn't be much of a hard sell, while remaining cosmic and inhuman enough to remain a fundamental force. Chaos and Law are still really just teams, but they're slightly more sensible than 'constructs that kill you for reasons you don't understand' and 'giant frog'.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:10 pm

You don't have the natural right to not get killed. Remember that the alignment system includes other species, so any behavior that you can derive from human evolutionary strategy or similar such philosophizing means fuck all. Tigers and Dragons do not acknowledge your right to not be killed, just as you don't recognize the rights of chicken or fish to not get killed and eaten.

Philosophies that try to derive rules are to my mind highly suspect even when they are isolated to humans. But when you expand the problem to other species (both sapient and non) the entire thing becomes retarded. Explain to me what the natural rights and obligations of a god damned ghoul are. For that matter, if things have anything to do with inherent demands, how can you have a creature like a slaad or a werewolf who is always Chaotic?

-Username17

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pm

I agree that 'natural rights' and so on are pretty much bullshit. I was going to add half a paragraph in my post about the fact that all the natural laws proposed by people are just societal constructs but I wasn't sure where I was going with the point and it didn't lead anywhere. And in an RPG where most of the rules are for combat having a natural law of no killing is blindingly retarded.

But, what I was suggesting was a set of almost random rules that could easily be contradictory depending on the situation and be in no way perfect. So, different Lawful groups would see things in different ways and have different viewpoints. And in the killing example if the natural law was to only kill to eat or for self defence then you could kill people then eat a finger or fight to defend yourself.

Chaotic beings such as slaads would see the natural laws as stupid and be trying to fight them and be not affected by any such inherent demands as you term them. They'd be involved in machiavellan plots to bring about changes in society that confuse people into ignoring the natural laws or just be doing what they want. Chaotic beings would be just as intelligent and able to plan as Lawful beings.

But anyway. This was just a random idea I came up with that I randomly fleshed out for the thread. I can almost see it happening for fiction but it would never work for an RPG because the players won't have any such legal conscience and won't know all the natural laws.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:19 pm

Here's my take on it:

Basically I think lawful and chaotic were supposed to indicate trustworthiness.

The only real kind of important thing I see in there is that lawful characters keep their word, and chaotics don't. The rest is pretty much garbage.

So in a game sense you may cast Detect Law on someone to see if the really intend on paying back a loan, or if the knight who just swore fealty is really going to serve the king in a loyal fashion. It's nice in a marriage ceremony to see if they're going to cheat on you too.

So it's a barometer to determine if someone is trustworthy or not.

This isn't necessarily to say that chaotics are completely random, but merely that they don't put any weight on doing what they said they'd do earlier. A chaotic knight who believes in a cause will still fight. However when he stops believing in the cause, he may decide not to serve anymore, because his oath to follow the king's orders isn't something he cares about.

ggroy · Post by **ggroy** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:04 am

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:10 am

ggroy wrote:What "alignment" would Beavis and Butthead have?

Chaotic Idiot.

Thymos · Post by **Thymos** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:12 am

The nail in the coffin for Chaotic and Lawful alignments is that they aren't mutually exclusive.

If you want to have a continuum where Chaos is one one side, and Law is on the other, then they need to be mutually exclusive. They aren't, and probably never will be.

Just another user · Post by **Just another user** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:33 am

My take on it:

first, Law should be called 'order', it would generate a lot less confusion IMHO, alignment is not about laws per se, every time more that a dozen sentient being got together you get to have laws in a form of the other even if just things like 'obey me or I chomp your head off'. Where alignment enter in play is when you consider what kind of society you want to create.

Second, personally I see alignment like a compass more than like a grid, just because you go in i.e. lawful good direction, it doesn't mean you go in the same exact direction of everyone else that is lawful good, you could steer more on one side or the other or just start in a different situation and so end in a different 'place'

third, something to always keep present when you talk about alignments alignment are influenced by you actions, not vice versa, (you don't kill puppies because you are evil, you are evil because you kill puppies) , this mean that in certain situations even a good character can do an evil act.

fourth, intentions count almost as actions in considering alignment two different aligned person could do the same thing for two different reasons, a evil baron c0uld treat his peasant in a fair nad just way, not because he respect or care for them in anyway, but because he think it is the most practical way to avoid a revolt, this doesn't mean he will turn Good (even if he could eventually turn neutral if he do it for a long time. Or not. This is a pretty grey area)

and last, alignment can and will change, only rare and exceptional individuals should be able to keep their alignemt for all their life, that way paladin are/should be so uncommon.

My 1 cent and 1/2.

Yes, I think way too much about this.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:12 am

Thymos wrote:The nail in the coffin for Chaotic and Lawful alignments is that they aren't mutually exclusive.

Neither are good and evil (i.e. I can be merciful and decent as all get-out to my family/clan/countrymen and treat others like shit). So what?

"Aha! Lord Swarthmore is a living saint, except he beats his dog. Therefore the alignment system crumbles like a house of cards!!!"