I miss CG

[The Mirrorball Man]

These are chaotic and good actions; there's nothing chaotic about the goodness, and the chaos prescribed wasn't even chaotic by the definition but ordered against tyranny.

It seems to me that you've come up with ad hoc definitions that fit your preexisting bias.

We can agree to disagree that R&J's vows had an inherently good quality.

I never agree to disagree, but I can drop it if you want.

 

[Celebrim]

What? We're talking about actions. You don't choose to commit to an action in line with your personal convictions because it's in balance with external authority, if you did you're some sort of all-knowing robot. If ultimately you will choose actions more in line with your personal convictions than external ideals, you'd be "Good."

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this, however people with lawful beliefs regularly ignore personal confusion or doubt in favor of conforming to external code that they believe in. This is the essense of having a 'lawful' mind set. The opposite, overturning external codes when they are at odds with you current feelings is 'chaotic'. The middle ground is weighing the two against each other as if each had some value. Obviously, no mortal is going to be perfect at following thier own convictions, or perfect at adhering to some external code so every mortal is going to be somewhat 'nuetral' by the simple virtue of not having perfect violition or understanding.

Now we get into the ignorance argument. Your contention is that lawful evil societies are attempting to do good, and using evil methods to enforce the good. If said society has no indication that they aren't right, how are they acting out of evil intent?

Not at all. The society could easily believe that 'the ends justify the means' and that what it was doing was regrettable and far from the ideal, but was necessary to achieve its 'good' final aim. And note by 'good' in this sense, I'm merely meaning 'desirable to the society'. I don't mean to claim that every desired end is good. In particular, the end goal could be very evil despite its percieved desirability.

Like eating meat, maybe the action turns out to have evil consequences. But it isn't an evil action. It's merely ignorance.

!!!

I think we have very different ideas of what an evil action is. I believe that doing evil requires being conscious that you're doing evil. Otherwise everything breaks down.

I'm inclined to agree that we have very different ideas of what an evil action is. I don't believe that evil requires being conscious that you are doing evil, nor do I believe 'everything breaks down' if you accept that evil is evil whether you believe or understand it to be evil or not. Knowingly doing evil indicates greater depravity, but doing evil and not knowing it for evil does not make it not evil.

Lawfully good actions don't require allegiance to society, but rather to goodness in general.

That's a fair indication of I think the heart of the argument here. I think you are biased toward thinking that lawful good is good. That is, all your arguments seem to indicate that you think lawfulness is an unseparatable component of goodness. Lawful good actions don't require allegiance to society (I never said that they did), but alleigence to goodness in general is merely 'good' - not lawful good. Lawful good is allegiance to a shared and externally critiquable code which is designed to promote goodness. It claims that lawfulness is an inseparable component of doing good, but from the perspective of a neutral good party, the lawful good person is comprimising on good values for the sake of achieving order and conformity.

But slavery is an evil practice. Smart Lawful Good people would understand this and do everything in their power to change the laws.

I'm inclined to agree with you that slavery is an evil practice, but I'm also willing to concede a little of my own lack of perfect sagacity when I consider how recently the human race has come to this conclusion. For most of human history, slavery was practiced as a part of normal human society virtually everywhere and I have no doubt that in a good many cases slaves were comfortable in thier position as slaves. I also note that in much of human history, the slaves of great households could rise to positions of influence and power by virtue of thier attachment to thier masters.

So I hardly think it should be obvious to anyone that slavery is evil regardless of your intelligence, nor do I agree that even a LG person made uncomfortable by the institution of slavery would do 'everything' in thier power to change the laws. A LG person would do everything allowed by thier code to change the laws, or else if not would soon cease to be LG.

See, the definition of Chaotic as Champions-Freedom doesn't really help because any Good person should be opposed to Evil.

Assuming only you assume 'freedom' is a thing of enherent absolute goodness. Our American society holds it as such for what I think are good and sufficient reasons, but it could simply be that we are 'chaotic good' and mistaking chaotic values as being inherent components of goodness.

A Lawful Good person shouldn't break down a door to stop horrible child abuse they know is happening, because they don't want to break someone else's property?

Do you advocate that policeman should break down doors without due process any time they suspect a crime may have been committed? How much power should a lawful good magistrate have to follow up thier hunches? Would such advocacy not eventually lead to a police state - something we tend to describe as 'lawful evil'?

Of course they break down the door, even if it isn't "lawful." So the pre-4E alignment could give no indication of the actions of the person, and is thus kind of worthless.

No they don't. The 'cop who follows the system' conflicting with the good cop who breaks the rules when they conflict with his own perceptions of what is good ('Dirty' Harry, for example) are classic staples of American fiction. Are you claiming that no such conflict over following the rules designed to promote liberty and goodness and breaking them to do immediate good exists?

The problem with slavery isn't that it's lawful, but that it's evil.

The problem with slavery is that the institution in practice so widely varies that it is difficult to make general claims about it. In some practices, slaves are personal property. In others they are state property and you merely have the usury of them. In some practices the period of servitude is for life and you are a slave by caste or birth. In other practices, the period of servitude is strictly limited. In some practices, the slave has no more rights than an animal. In other practices, slaves are strictly protected by the law and have various rights and at least in theory methods of redressing wrongs. In some practices, slaves are second class citizens or not citizens at all. In others, slaves are merely second class family members. In some cases, slavery is considered an honorable estate and slaves can acquire property and power. In others, slaves don't even own thier own bodies. In most cases, the reality is far more complex than either extreme. In some practices, slaves are disposable labor. In other practices, slavery is a form of public welfare system designed to protect the poor from deprivation.

I'm glad we are rid of it, but I'm not at all convinced I understand the institution.

 

[rhm001]

(Referring to nonviolent resistance and the Boston Tea Party) These are chaotic and good actions; there's nothing chaotic about the goodness, and the chaos prescribed wasn't even chaotic by the definition but ordered against tyranny.

I'm particularly interested in your view of the Boston Tea Party. Are you maintaining that it was Lawful because there was a plan? It was a small group of people who agreed to destroy some tea to protest the tax. It wasn't a large community agreement, and there wasn't a law that said it was acceptable (and the Declaration of Independence sights the right of citizens to throw out a government, NOT a boatload of tea). How can you say it was Lawful, other than being planned?

If any plan makes an act Lawful, what act, good OR evil, is Chaotic? Raids require some level of planning ("O.K. everybody, we're leaving on the 12th. Bring your weapons, two days food, and be ready for some pillagin'! Woo!"). Murders usually involve some level of planning. Charles Manson's actions were crazy, but certainly ordered, in that he and his followers planned the murders and had a clear goal of somehow initiating some sort of race revolution. There are certainly "heat of passion" crimes, but the whole point of the definition is that those are isolated incidents, which, everyone keeps saying, don't define a person. So, again, how, in your opinion, does a truly Chaotic person or group really behave?

 

[Mercule]

I am glad chaotic vanished from players choice... it was always an excuse to play as a jerk...

Odd. The jerks I've played with tended to take lawful. That way, they could boss you around in character.

 

[Dausuul]

As an aside: I always thought that the idea behind Law and Chaos "warring" against each other was ridiculous. What motivation would there be? Ordered minds understand that Law can't exist without Chaos, and the essence of Chaos is mindless irrational action--it shouldn't care. Even templars of Law and Chaos only work if you give Law and Chaos some moral-based reason to oppose each other, and then you dip into Good vs. Evil.
Lawful Good and Lawful Evil ganging up against Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil.

I don't know, I think the Law/Chaos war can actually work reasonably well. It would go something like this:

Lawful Good regards Chaotic Good as well-meaning but misguided. Law is necessary for the greater good. Chaotic Good people should be reformed if possible. If they can't be reformed, they should be treated leniently, since their intentions are good; but they can't be allowed to tear down the social structures that protect everyone. Killing them is a last resort, but if it must be done, it must be done.

Lawful Good regards Lawful Evil as distasteful, but sometimes a necessary ally. Lawful Evil types may be cruel, selfish bastards, but they understand the need for rules and order. And although Lawful Good hates to admit it, there are times when the iron fist is what's needed; a competent tyrant is better than anarchy.

Chaotic Good regards Lawful Good as hopelessly naive. In Chaotic Good's view, the desire to impose a rigid social order is the source of far greater evil than any petty bandit or cat burglar. Only in small, independent communities can people live in peace and freedom; large nation-states inevitably breed tyranny, and social order is just a tool for the few to oppress the many. Just as with Lawful Good, Chaotic Good would prefer to bring Lawful Good people around to its own point of view, and is reluctant to harm them; but if they will defend the corrupt order, the revolution cannot wait upon their enlightenment.

Chaotic Good regards Chaotic Evil as tragic, but understandable. To Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil people are just responding to the brutality of the society in which they live. While Chaotic Good will not help such maniacs commit their atrocities, it also is reluctant to interfere with them, taking the attitude that "You reap what you sow."

Lawful Evil regards Lawful Good as naive and idealistic, but useful. As far as Lawful Evil is concerned, social order is the only logical way to run things, and the goal of any sensible person is to claw one's way to the top of said order--or at least as high as one can reasonably hope to get. Lawful Good people are silly for not wanting to climb higher, but their dedication to supporting the social order is very handy.

Lawful Evil regards Chaotic Evil as crazy and dangerous. While it's rational to be out for yourself, it's not rational to be a destructive criminal. More to the point, such criminals threaten to undermine Lawful Evil's own position. Lawful Evil likes stability and predictability, and fears disruption.

Chaotic Evil regards Chaotic Good as handy to have around. Since Chaotic Evil thrives in anarchy and social breakdown, anyone who helps create confusion is useful. That doesn't mean Chaotic Evil won't stab Chaotic Good in the back, but it's more likely to want a good reason before doing so.

Chaotic Evil regards Lawful Evil as a threat to its own free will. While it doesn't give a damn about the poor oppressed peasants, it takes exception to anyone trying to push it around. Chaotic Evil doesn't want to lock itself into the stifling rules of society, it wants to take what it wants and have it right effin' now, and Lawful Evil types interfere with that.

Obviously, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil utterly detest each other, as do Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm particularly interested in your view of the Boston Tea Party...

The Boston Tea Party is particularly apt because, among other things...

a) The participants apparantly knew that the act that they were participating in was 'chaotic' as evidenced by the fact that they dressed as (to thier mind) barbarians when they did it. They recognized the act as something that normal members of the society would not in fact do.
b) There was no existing ethical code at the time which would have endorsed vandalism in response to a burdensome tax. Consider that it wasn't even the property of the King who they were protesting against that was destroyed. There was nothing just or proportional in the retaliation by any normal legal or ethical standard.
c) The ethical standard by which the participants justified thier act, that a tax is not moral if it is imposed without the (presumably majority) consent of the persons being taxed ('No taxation without representation!'), was not only a wholy novel idea, but one an inherently 'chaotic' one is as much as it claims social or civic authority is subservient to the individual right to choose.
d) The British Empire against which the colonist were revolting was so far from being an extremely unjust, unfair, unrepresentative, and tyrannical state that it could probably have been considered the most just, most fair, most representative, and least tyrannical empire that hithertoo the world had ever seen. This is afterall the same empire which is by this time more or less jointly run by an elected Parliment, gaurantees basic rights to its citizens, and will shortly use its naval power to end maritime slave trafficing the world over. And yet, for all the fact that its not an overly unjust society, the colonists are claiming absolute moral authority based solely on the fact that they don't have the liberty to govern themselves as they see fit.
e) The expressed goal of the act is not to increase American power or even personal ambition (no one stole the tea and resold it), but simply to secure liberties.

 

[Mercule]

Pretty good summary, Dausuul. I might disagree with a couple of the specific adjectives, but not by much. It would have been nice to have some book in the previous 34 years of D&D actually provide that much detail (slight though it may be) to the alignments.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

It seems to me that you've come up with ad hoc definitions that fit your preexisting bias.

I'm basing my argument on my definitions. And the reason for the argument is that people are defining concepts differently than WotC has decided to define them. Definitions are tricky things, are they not?

I never agree to disagree, but I can drop it if you want.

All right...explain to me how a wedding vow is Good in and of itself.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this, however people with lawful beliefs regularly ignore personal confusion or doubt in favor of conforming to external code that they believe in. This is the essense of having a 'lawful' mind set. The opposite, overturning external codes when they are at odds with you current feelings is 'chaotic'.

The definition of "Chaos" implies not reacting to codes at all, because they cannot apply.

Not at all. The society could easily believe that 'the ends justify the means' and that what it was doing was regrettable and far from the ideal, but was necessary to achieve its 'good' final aim. And note by 'good' in this sense, I'm merely meaning 'desirable to the society'. I don't mean to claim that every desired end is good. In particular, the end goal could be very evil despite its percieved desirability.

All right. An action is lawful And evil. We're not talking about lawful/evil actions, but actions designed to achieve evil through law, as Lawful Good actions are designed to achieve good through law. There are no such Lawful Evil actions, therefore they cannot exist on the same axis.

I'm inclined to agree that we have very different ideas of what an evil action is. I don't believe that evil requires being conscious that you are doing evil, nor do I believe 'everything breaks down' if you accept that evil is evil whether you believe or understand it to be evil or not. Knowingly doing evil indicates greater depravity, but doing evil and not knowing it for evil does not make it not evil.

There can be evil results of good-intentioned actions. I don't consider those actions to be evil, because otherwise there's no point in considering good and evil as being possible at all.
To clarify towards the central point, it isn't functional to base a system of alignment on actions that you have no one way of knowing are evil. It doesn't help the character.

That's a fair indication of I think the heart of the argument here. I think you are biased toward thinking that lawful good is good. That is, all your arguments seem to indicate that you think lawfulness is an unseparatable component of goodness.

You understand that I'm not saying that Lawful/Good and Lawful Good are the same thing right? Lawful/Good equates to the past editions, Lawful Good to the current. Not mutually exclusive systems, but one's better than another.
I'm saying there is a distinct difference, and no one else seems to see that. Which is kinda cool, it means this argument means something.

So I hardly think it should be obvious to anyone that slavery is evil regardless of your intelligence, nor do I agree that even a LG person made uncomfortable by the institution of slavery would do 'everything' in thier power to change the laws. A LG person would do everything allowed by thier code to change the laws, or else if not would soon cease to be LG.

Lawful/Good would be troubled by the indecision between whether to be Lawful or Good. In 4E, if this was a serious issue, that person would probably be Unaligned because their focus isn't Good or Evil.

Assuming only you assume 'freedom' is a thing of enherent absolute goodness. Our American society holds it as such for what I think are good and sufficient reasons, but it could simply be that we are 'chaotic good' and mistaking chaotic values as being inherent components of goodness.

What? The point is that championing anything is to take a moral stance.

Do you advocate that policeman should break down doors without due process any time they suspect a crime may have been committed? How much power should a lawful good magistrate have to follow up thier hunches? Would such advocacy not eventually lead to a police state - something we tend to describe as 'lawful evil'?

No...? I don't get it...this still has nothing to do with chaotically good action or lawfully evil action. (Read: as differentiated between Chaotic/Good action and Lawful/Evil action.)

No they don't. The 'cop who follows the system' conflicting with the good cop who breaks the rules when they conflict with his own perceptions of what is good ('Dirty' Harry, for example) are classic staples of American fiction. Are you claiming that no such conflict over following the rules designed to promote liberty and goodness and breaking them to do immediate good exists?

Never did claim so. I'm claiming that the action to break down a door to save a child you think is in danger isn't chaotic. This is because we still have different definitions of chaotic, mine having more to do with the current edition and the actual definition and yours having to do with an idealistic chaos.

I'm glad we are rid of it, but I'm not at all convinced I understand the institution.

Slavery is evil, by the common connotations of the word. It isn't indentured servitude, it isn't doing it for someone's own good, it is using someone else for your own good without their consent.

Personally I don't really believe in evil, because I'm a Spinozist. Functionally, though, it describes what we see.

I'm particularly interested in your view of the Boston Tea Party. Are you maintaining that it was Lawful because there was a plan? It was a small group of people who agreed to destroy some tea to protest the tax. It wasn't a large community agreement, and there wasn't a law that said it was acceptable (and the Declaration of Independence sights the right of citizens to throw out a government, NOT a boatload of tea). How can you say it was Lawful, other than being planned?

Lawful by the ideals of the people involved. Unless their ideals didn't dictate their action, but some sort of intuitive sense of good.

If any plan makes an act Lawful, what act, good OR evil, is Chaotic? Raids require some level of planning ("O.K. everybody, we're leaving on the 12th. Bring your weapons, two days food, and be ready for some pillagin'! Woo!"). Murders usually involve some level of planning. Charles Manson's actions were crazy, but certainly ordered, in that he and his followers planned the murders and had a clear goal of somehow initiating some sort of race revolution. There are certainly "heat of passion" crimes, but the whole point of the definition is that those are isolated incidents, which, everyone keeps saying, don't define a person. So, again, how, in your opinion, does a truly Chaotic person or group really behave?

Insane. Or with actions based on illogical premises.
Rampant stupidity is a good cause of this, and probably why most people are Chaotic/_____.

 

[Dausuul]

Pretty good summary, Dausuul. I might disagree with a couple of the specific adjectives, but not by much. It would have been nice to have some book in the previous 34 years of D&D actually provide that much detail (slight though it may be) to the alignments.

Well, bear in mind that that's just one way to look at things. I was demonstrating that a campaign organized around the Law/Chaos conflict is a viable concept. It does require a strong commitment to ideology for both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, in order to justify their opposition; such a campaign would probably get very philosophical. The Good/Evil conflict is easier to work with for those who don't feel like making alignment a centerpiece of the campaign.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Dausuul: Sure. I still don't see a war ordained by the elemental concepts of Order and Chaos. Lawful/Good vs. Lawful/Chaotic makes perfect sense though, because they're humanoid and have feelings about things that can cause actions that don't align with the concepts of Order and Chaos.
In other words, no person will ever be perfectly Lawful or Chaotic.