Changes to Devils and Demons

[Merlion]

No offense, but I disagree. Good and Evil are the same as Chaos and Order or Black and White or Autumn and Spring. You fail to convince me, sorry.

This doesnt really make sense to me in the context of the discussion.

My only point is: a game with alignment, but without "Law" and "Chaos" but with Good and Evil isnt automatically some unsophisticated black and white straight forward thing, by any means.

And that "Law" and "Chaos" as presented in D&D are basically character traits and politics and just dont have much place in the concept of personally alignment, or on the spell lists.

And lastly, that most people in reality dont really give a flip about "law" and "Chaos". They care about safety, and about having/doing what they want...and most decisions they make are based on either their idea of whats right (good) or simply on their desires.

 

[Klaus]

This doesnt really make sense to me in the context of the discussion.

My only point is: a game with alignment, but without "Law" and "Chaos" but with Good and Evil isnt automatically some unsophisticated black and white straight forward thing, by any means.

And that "Law" and "Chaos" as presented in D&D are basically character traits and politics and just dont have much place in the concept of personally alignment, or on the spell lists.

And lastly, that most people in reality dont really give a flip about "law" and "Chaos". They care about safety, and about having/doing what they want...and most decisions they make are based on either their idea of whats right (good) or simply on their desires.

"Law" and "Chaos" don't need to have anything to do with politics.

Lawful characters value tradition, preparation, living in groups, caution.

Chaotic characters value innovation, improvisation, living independently, daring.

 

[DarthDiablo]

I don't know; I will reserve my opinion on the girl, but what I really think is, you're missing the point. It doesn't take the disrespect of one law (or one specific law) to turn you from Lawful to Chaotic. What matters is, do you believe you're better off with or without laws? Or better, Is it better to have organisation or to let things happen at their own pace? If you're Lawful, you'll naturally want to follow laws, or set them up. You'll try to cooperate with others to achieve your goals (be they fair or foul) and try to set up an environment where everyone can know what is expected of them.

On the other hand, if you're Chaotic, you have little use for strictures; everyone has tugged along at their own pace, and somehow, they've found an equilibrium. You thrive off that equilibrium, pursuing your own goals (be they fair or foul) without much heed as to what others expect of you.

So it was the same with Devils and Demons: Devils/Baatezu feel the need to work within a defined structure, and subvert it to their own baleful needs. Thus, they are deceivers and slanderers, but they try to work from within mortal society. Demons/Tanar'ri have little need for this -- they are rapers and destroyers, and will bring to ruin all that is good and fair by fire and steel, if need be; in fact, they much prefer that method!

Of course, even if alignment is de-emphasized, the ghosts of those ancestral roles still remain. Because, in the end, they're still very interesting archetypes for villains the heroes can be set against.

I do see your point. Perhaps the example of the girl was too narrow in it's field of view, however that is how some players/DMs (especially newer ones) seem to treat alignment. With a narrow field of view. These same people are often the Rule Nazi's. They find obscure rules & say you can't do that because on page# of this accessory it says..... A lot of fun is taken out of the game when dealing with those folk. I suspect the changes in 4E will be to lessen some of these situations.

My argument was Law and Chaos are not as fundimentaly important as Good & Evil in terms of alignment as a rule. I like your definition of chaotic, but if your character's goals & equilibrium are too similar to a lawful or neutral characters (more likely the latter), even if you consider it to be marching to your own beat, the can rules find you not acting chaotic enough and thus forcing an alignment change or penalizing your character, depending on which class you are. Hence why I said there should only be 3 alignments in terms of rules Good, Neutral & Evil. Law vs. Chaos to me is more flavor (as you pointed out with the ancestral roles of Demons & Devils). Of course the same argument could be made for Good & Evil, but for new players I think those should be kept as fundamentals.

As I have said before, to me alignment is a tool. I don't like the way many people read it as black or white or as a "written in stone" rule. The world is a grey place and hopefuly the new rules will address that fact.

 

[Merlion]

"Law" and "Chaos" don't need to have anything to do with politics.

Lawful characters value tradition, preparation, living in groups, caution.

Chaotic characters value innovation, improvisation, living independently, daring.

Yep. And those are the other things I mentioned: Personality traits.

"Law" and 'Chaos" in D&D usually consist of politics, personality traits, or both.



Aside from that, another reason why many value the Good/Evil aspect more highly: People can generally agree on many basics of Good and Evil, or at least of right and wrong behaviour. On the other hand, what constitutes "lawful" or "chaotic" is often very subjective. They also tend to cross over quite a lot in some areas...since they are really just phases of the same thing...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yep. And those are the other things I mentioned: Personality traits.

"Law" and 'Chaos" in D&D usually consist of politics, personality traits, or both.

So, good and evil aren't personality traits? What are we describing, if not a person's tendency to act in a particular way?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Yep. And those are the other things I mentioned: Personality traits.

"Law" and 'Chaos" in D&D usually consist of politics, personality traits, or both.

The personality traits part was touched upon above me...so I'll hit the other.

How do Good and Evil not consist of politics? It seems like that would be just as important to Good and Evil...if not moreso.

 

[Merlion]

So, good and evil aren't personality traits? What are we describing, if not a person's tendency to act in a particular way?

In D&D Good and Evil are states of being which can make a person or thing subject to particular magical effects, which I am fine with. I don't think "law" and "chaos" should have the same effect.

Also within D&D (and within the real world) Good and Evil are overall, widely accepted concepts of right and wrong, not simply traits or quirks that people have. Now yes, Law and Chaos are also, to some extent, put forth as "cosmic concepts" in D&D (mostly in a way i find very forced and contrived) but in the actual alignment descreptions, the factors or things that supposedly make one "lawful" or "chaotic" strike me as simply have a certain type of personality or certain political views. Wereas being good or evil basically implies wether one is decent and has some regard for others...or does not.

And in most fantasy, conflicts are usually primarily between good and evil...or, between right and wrong, or both. Even the ones that use law/order and chaos terminology, or some other substitute, it still basically ends up being Good and Evil.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Good and Evil are moral choices, not personality traits. The Good/Evil axis of alignment reflects the being's moral choice tendencies.

 

[DarthDiablo]

Good and Evil are moral choices, not personality traits. The Good/Evil axis of alignment reflects the being's moral choice tendencies.

Agreed. There is less moral abiguity in Good vs. Evil than in Law vs. Chaos. If Law & Chaos are supposed to be reflections of one's behavior, in the sense of their outlook on life, i.e. chaotic characters are more carefree, passionate, creative & impulsive vs. lawful who are more rigid, organized, group oriented then where does a charcter like Robin Hood fit in. Most will instincitvely say CG. But he was only chaotic when Prince John was on the throne. When King Richard was around he was a loyalist, who followed his just and lawful King's rule. Therefore he should be LG. But since he did a bit of both, maybe he's NG? (if i remember correctly he was used as an example of CG in at least one edition of D&D) The point here is he is Good. In terms of law & chaos there is more ambiguity of what is lawful & what is chaotic. Moral choice =Good/Evil Personality trait/political belief = Law/Chaos

 

[Gentlegamer]

A Lawful Good character can resist a tyrant (unjust acts of authority that therefore do not have moral force of obedience), so Robin Hood could very well be LG.

Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God.