Alignment Issues

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Ugh. I need my new computer so I can post the thing and everyone can read it. That or I'll submit it for DH. SHORT VERSION.

 

Law/Chaos: MORAL axis. It's not about one world view of law or one world view of chaos; it's a direct measure of how you view your own place in society. If you're Lawful, you will attempt to fit in, at least on the surface. You may have a personal code of honor to which you rigidly adhere (note: do not confuse this with a set of ideals to which you constantly aspire, that's more Chaos, but it gets muddy). So my whole point in writing the thing was to point out: Hey, Law don't always mean what you think it means.

 

Good/Evil: This is the ETHICAL axis. As I noted in the snippet, the whole thing only makes sense when you take these out of the hermetic packaging and apply them together, and then apply some reason & logic. You can consider ANY alignment you purchase to be a 25 point "Common, Total" IF you're using the d20 concept. I do NOT use it, so I'm in a whole separate camp.

 

Your Ethics and your Morality are intertwined; they influence each other. For some people, the Ethical choice is more important; they're more concerned with being 'Good' than they are with adherence to the law or a code, nor are they convinced that they have to 'act out.' That isn't a new alignment, it's just "Neutral Good." But there are many, many ways to interpret all of the alignments.

 

PhilFleischman's Lawful Good could end him up as an Executioner. Oh yeah. He's LAWFUL. He has a job, his job is supported by the government, he gets government bennies. He's GOOD. He believes he's doing a service for the people. He gets no joy or pleasure from his job, but he doesn't take away much remorse, either. He believes the people who are sentenced to die came to that sentence through misdeeds.

 

Does that mean he has to sometimes rationalize that an innocent person might be under his axe? YES, IT DOES, which sets him up for some great role playing. But it means he makes hard choices, not that he is either unlawful (clearly not, in the brief example) or evil (as other than his job, he's never hurt anyone, not even in anger).

 

Just sayin'.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

For some people' date=' the Ethical choice is more important; they're more concerned with being 'Good' than they are with adherence to the law or a code, nor are they convinced that they have to 'act out.'[/quote']

I would assume, at least in the real world, that that would be true of almost everyone. I can't imagine any context in which the law/chaos axis is more important than the good/evil axis. If you meet a stranger on the road, you might worry about whether he'll do something evil to you. You probably don't care so much if he's a rebellious iconoclast who is highly critical of the society around him. Likewise, it probably matters more to you that he's helpful and kind toward you, then how strictly he obeys the law, or conforms to some code of honor.

 

PhilFleischman's Lawful Good could end him up as an Executioner. ...

Which illustrates my point about the D&D silliness: that alignment need have nothing to do with profession, personality, or skill set.

 

Likewise Thia's Chaotic Evil could end him up as a Doctor.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0068.html

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

CE? Whyioughtta...

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I would assume' date=' at least in the real world, that that would be true of almost everyone. I can't imagine any context in which the law/chaos axis is more important than the good/evil axis. If you meet a stranger on the road, you might worry about whether he'll do something evil to you. You probably don't care so much if he's a rebellious iconoclast who is highly critical of the society around him. Likewise, it probably matters more to you that he's helpful and kind toward you, then how strictly he obeys the law, or conforms to some code of honor.[/quote']

 

My experience of the real world has obviously differed from yours. I would say that many people either are not very concerned with good and evil, or do not at all agree with your assessment of the meaning of the terms.

 

 

Likewise Thia's Chaotic Evil could end him up as a Doctor.

 

True, but would you want to be his patient?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary sings "Gravity Exiles" in harmony with itself.

[Shike019]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

And I have no problem with that (either Norse Mythology' date=' or comic books, in fact, I quite enjoy both), but my question is, what the heck do "law" and "chaos" mean in those contexts? I have seen occasions where these words (or similar ones) were simply substitutes for "good" and "evil." Do they mean something else in the comic books refered to? I don't know of any such law/chaos war in DC. Nor do I know of any conflict between law and chaos in Norse mythology. In both of those cases, AFAIK, the conflict is between good and evil, just like it is in real life for at least ten thousand years.[/quote']

 

Personally I think a better term to use than law is Order vs. Chaos. Order takes out any implicit "legal" meaning such as the laws of a particular land. As an example, someone with a Lawful alignment could walk into a City where the laws are all against his personal code of honor, which means he isn't obligated to follow those laws.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

CE? Whyioughtta...

At least I made you a doctor. An executioner doesn't even need a degree.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

My experience of the real world has obviously differed from yours. I would say that many people either are not very concerned with good and evil' date=' or do not at all agree with your assessment of the meaning of the terms.[/quote']

None of which contradicts anything I said. I never said that everyone, or even the majority of people care about good and evil. I said that far more people care about good and evil than care about "law" and "chaos." The reason we have laws in the first place is to help fight evil and encourage good. Nor do they need to agree with my personal assessment.

[David Johnston]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

The reason we have laws in the first place is to help fight evil and encourage good. Nor do they need to agree with my personal assessment.

 

I disagree. The reason "we" have laws in the first place is to ensure the maintenance of public order. Consider...if you will, the laws of the United States prior to the 14th amendment. Can any reasonable person say that the laws concerning slaves were in any way designed to fight evil and encourage good, as they are defined by the D&D rules?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I disagree. The reason "we" have laws in the first place is to ensure the maintenance of public order. Consider...if you will' date=' the laws of the United States prior to the 14th amendment. Can any reasonable person say that the laws concerning slaves were in any way designed to fight evil and encourage good, as they are defined by the D&D rules?[/quote']

 

Absolutely. Most reasonable people owned slaves.

 

What? I'm just saying that there's as much to the lens as there is to the law. It's why I go insane in classical lit courses - you don't hold up Heracles or Agamemnon to modern law - they didn't HAVE modern law. When it was time to change from slavery, to no slavery, the change was made.

 

And the way you quote "we" reminds me of Pesach. Are you the Wicked Son, asking why WE have these laws that WE must follow, thus excluding yourself from the situation? For you are to tell him: "This is what the Almighty did for me, when I was taken out of Egypt," for he would not have been saved.

 

Sorry. Chaunkah. Got Judaism on meh mind. Point being, we, collectively, choose to obey the law or get thrown under the bus of the law. Or not get caught, but as has been said before, I'm Awful Good.

 

However. If it were an Order/Chaos axis... would that make me a Good Orderlie? Can I get t3h h0tn355 nurses?

[Outsider]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

One could interpret the Law/Chaos spectrum as one that rates how much one thinks that obligations to the group/society outweigh the rights (or privilege, if you prefer) of the individual.

 

The more lawful an individual, the more willing he is to circumscribe the actions/existence of others (through force or the threat of force) for what he perceives as the benefit of all.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

What you're touching on, Outsider, and what the bulk of the essay is about, is just that: it isn't simply an axis, it's a lens, and beyond that, a snapshot of behavior. How average LG person acts on a given day is as much a factor of their view of society (the moral axis) as it is their own interests (ethical axis). Those 9 possibile combinations are nearly limitless in their interpretation, while still giving someone "a guideline."

 

That's why I *like* the alignment system, and never understood why people bash it so heavily.

[Shike019]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

What you're touching on, Outsider, and what the bulk of the essay is about, is just that: it isn't simply an axis, it's a lens, and beyond that, a snapshot of behavior. How average LG person acts on a given day is as much a factor of their view of society (the moral axis) as it is their own interests (ethical axis). Those 9 possibile combinations are nearly limitless in their interpretation, while still giving someone "a guideline."

 

That's why I *like* the alignment system, and never understood why people bash it so heavily.

 

While I agree with you, the main problem that people see witht he D&D alignment system is they feel constrained by it. They see it as a definition of their character not a general description of their behavior. One can give a reasonably accurate description of what an average character with each alignment will do in a given situation (like I said, average character) but there are always those who don't and won't follow the stereotype but that is true of any society.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

You're absolutely correct - and it's what spawned an 8 page essay on the topic, detailing that we are all different, and 20 people who share the same "core alignment" can exhibit 20 completely different behaviors, based on their view of the world (the Lawful Good Executioner) or their society. However, it also makes the entire thing nearly impossible to discuss because I'm effectively creating a new thesis:

 

Thesis 1: Most people have a flawed understanding of the alignment system

Thesis 2: The alignment system is inherently flawed to begin with

Synthesis: To 'rewrite' the system for clearer comprehension and to remove some (never all) of the confusion.

 

New Thesis: that by combining your characters 'world view' and their 'ethical standing' you can come up with an alignment that may surprise you, instead of constraining you. In HERO, this would be purchased as a Disad, "Alignment, Common, Total." In d20, it's a function of the system. I'll go into this in detail in my DH article (as soon as I get the new 'puter.)

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I hope Zornwill doesn't mine me porting this over from the Champions forum:

 

Whoever wants to create a "morality test" needs some form of center for it to hang on. You need to decide if it's 4-color' date=' New Age, "sophisticated" modern, or whatever. And even at that, it ends up being at least a semi-personal statement,a t best. It only amounts to one lens through which to view heroes. I see it as an entertaining diversion but it's not particularly valuable.[/quote']

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has been accused of being Chaotic Evil!

[Kristopher]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

The palindromedary has been accused of being Chaotic Evil!

 

I always thought it would tend towards beliefs centering on duality.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I'm true Neutral. I go both ways.

 

-Julia Greenhilt, OOTS

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I always thought it would tend towards beliefs centering on duality.

 

Yeah. Don't ask me to explain the accusation, I just report it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary denies all such allegations at one end.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I disagree. The reason "we" have laws in the first place is to ensure the maintenance of public order.

And what is it that you think public order is for? The law is to protect the innocent and punish tha guilty - that's called "good". Yes, it's certainly possible to abuse and twist the law to accomplish evil, or even to establish evil laws or an evil legal system, but that just proves my earlier point that the law/chaos axis is trivial in comparison with the good/evil axis.

 

Consider...if you will, the laws of the United States prior to the 14th amendment. Can any reasonable person say that the laws concerning slaves were in any way designed to fight evil and encourage good, as they are defined by the D&D rules?

That's off the subject completely. No one is making the claim that a law or body of laws must be perfect in order to be good. The failure of good people/societies/laws/etc. to *always* be good in *all* ways does not invalidate the idea of goodness.

 

Just to clarify my position re: the D&D alignment system specifically...

 

1. I don't have much problem with it at all *as a game mechanic*. It works, more or less, within the game as it's meant to.

2. The seemingly equal emphasis on both axes, IMO, doesn't at all reflect any realistic concept of morality. And it's the Law/Chaos axis that's the problem.

3. It seems a little silly to me the way they define it (the Law/Chaos axis) one way (it's about the relationship between the individual and the society), and then use it in a completely different way (it's about an individual's internal mental processes). Leading to the idea that monks are "lawful" because their abilities are based on mental discipline and barbarians are "chaotic" because they go berserk in combat. What do "rage" and "open hand damage" have to do with the individual's place in society?

4. To me one of the most (if not *the most*) important aspects of the good/evil axis is precisely the relationship between the individual and the society. It isn't really a separate and independant axis at all (at least not in that way).

5. I also dislike the D&D attitude that alignment is pretty much a choice without concequence. Just pick one, it only effects which magic items you can use and what classes you can take and how you "detect." They're all "equal" and "balanced." I much prefer the HERO attitude that PCs are supposed to be heroes. Being a good guy is a much more difficult, worthy, and interesting challange than being a bad guy.

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

One could interpret the Law/Chaos spectrum as one that rates how much one thinks that obligations to the group/society outweigh the rights (or privilege, if you prefer) of the individual.

 

The more lawful an individual, the more willing he is to circumscribe the actions/existence of others (through force or the threat of force) for what he perceives as the benefit of all.

 

I see a similar interpretation, but with less of an externalized twist:

 

The character's Good/Evil position is located somewhere along the Law/Chaos axis; if Law reigns supreme, the character will follow the law over their own Good/Evil beliefs, but if Chaos usurps power, the character will ignore the law in pursuit of their Good/Evil beliefs.

 

The question with Law and Chaos isn't, then, about others - it's about oneself. Alignment conflicts aren't resolved through pointing the finger at someone else. Characters can set up some other situation as the scapegoat for their decisions, but fundamentally - in order to make those decisions - they need to have some way of doing so that is innate to themselves.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

The character's Good/Evil position is located somewhere along the Law/Chaos axis; if Law reigns supreme' date=' the character will follow the law over their own Good/Evil beliefs, but if Chaos usurps power, the character will ignore the law in pursuit of their Good/Evil beliefs.[/quote']

But you can say the exact same thing about the Good/Evil axis. If Good reigns supreme, the character will follow the principles of goodness regardless of what the law says, but if Evil usurps power, the character will ignore the law or obey it according to whether it supports or hinders his evil purposes.

 

The question with Law and Chaos isn't, then, about others - it's about oneself. Alignment conflicts aren't resolved through pointing the finger at someone else. Characters can set up some other situation as the scapegoat for their decisions, but fundamentally - in order to make those decisions - they need to have some way of doing so that is innate to themselves.

Well that's just a basic truism about alignment itself. And it also applies to good and evil. That was never in question. The question is, what do the different alignment axes mean? Alignment is always "within the character himself" as are other aspects of the character. Each character can choose them freely, along with any other properties/aspects (subject to the limits of the game system).

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I don't know if it's been mentioned or not, but this thread made me think of Palladium's alignment system. I did read the thread, but a couple days ago. So, yeah, slow thinker here.

 

I liked what Palladium did with the idea. They had good and evil types, then they had what most people fall into: Selfish. Instead of Neutral, the Selfish type was pretty much just that, interested in their own welfare to differing degrees and not so much inclined towards heroics or villainy. They also dropped all of the metaphysical baggage and stupidity of alignment languages from DnD. All in all, I thought their descriptions for each alignment were well done and could probably be lifted wholesale as Psych Limit disadvantages.

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

But you can say the exact same thing about the Good/Evil axis. If Good reigns supreme' date=' the character will follow the principles of goodness regardless of what the law says, but if Evil usurps power, the character will ignore the law or obey it according to whether it supports or hinders his evil purposes.[/quote']

 

If you do that, though, you may as well not have any other measurement of Law; the Good/Evil is already deciding it.

 

The two-dimensional construct only makes sense if each dimension does not cover anything in the other dimensions (in this case just one, but the principle still applies).

 

If we can derive Law/Chaos from Good/Evil, it doesn't make any sense to have Law/Chaos; it would be determined by Good/Evil, and therefore couldn't have an independent rating. The existence of two separate axes is meaningless unless we reserve the essential aspects of each axis for that axis.

[Kristopher]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I don't know if it's been mentioned or not, but this thread made me think of Palladium's alignment system. I did read the thread, but a couple days ago. So, yeah, slow thinker here.

 

I liked what Palladium did with the idea. They had good and evil types, then they had what most people fall into: Selfish. Instead of Neutral, the Selfish type was pretty much just that, interested in their own welfare to differing degrees and not so much inclined towards heroics or villainy. They also dropped all of the metaphysical baggage and stupidity of alignment languages from DnD. All in all, I thought their descriptions for each alignment were well done and could probably be lifted wholesale as Psych Limit disadvantages.

 

One of the things Palladium did fairly well.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I liked what Palladium did with the idea. They had good and evil types' date=' then they had what most people fall into: Selfish. Instead of Neutral, the Selfish type was pretty much just that, interested in their own welfare to differing degrees and not so much inclined towards heroics or villainy.[/quote']

I like this! And I think it is a better description of real-world alignments. I was beginning to think of something pretty much like this, that realistic alignment is better represented not by a square with two axes, but by a triangle. The nomenclature I was thinking of fits together nicely IMO. I was going to call them Moral, Immoral, and Amoral.

 

One thing to remember is that in the real world, no one actually thinks of themselves as evil. No one wakes up in the morning and thinks, "I'm going to go out and do evil today! I'm going to hurt people and make the world a worse place! Mbwahahaha!" To take a canonical example of evil, even Hitler didn't think he was evil. He thought he was doing a wonderful thing for the world by ridding it of Jews and other undesirables.

 

In RPG's, especially fantasy, you *can* have creatures that specifically try to be evil and acknowledge that their evil, such as demons and such, that are inherently made to be forces of evil. Other than those types, creatures with the ability to choose between good and evil (such as humans), will either not care at all about the choice (the Amoral or Selfish alignment), or they will consider themselves to be good, even if they aren't.