Shorthand interpretation of alignment (Batman)

[Frostmarrow]

I know, since alignment was pruned there is no controversy left in the system. However, today something interesting occurred to me. What if the ethics axis (lawful - chaotic) represents how a character looks upon others and the morale axis (good - evil) represents themselves. Such that a lawful character assumes others are good. A chaotic character assumes others are evil.

Examples:

A lawful good paladin is good and treats others as if they too are good (generously).

A chotic good avenger is good but treats others as if they are evil (suspiciously).

A lawful evil bandit is evil but treats others as if they are good (courteously).

A chaotic evil warlord is evil and treats others as if they too are evil (belligerently).

What do you think? It would be pretty easy to define fictional characters by using this shorthand. -Batman? Chaotic Good.

 

[Nifft]

The way I played it, Law/Chaos was the person's attitude to organizational structures in general. A Lawful person felt happy when there was a System; a Chaotic person disliked Systems and only trusted individuals.

E.g.: a Lawful person might hate a specific corrupt bureaucrat, but would respect the office he represented; a Chaotic person would not see the "office he represented" at all, and would only see the world in terms of relations between individuals.

A Chaotic Good person might see the world in terms of debts of honor & obligations between individuals, while a Chaotic Evil person only sees the world in terms of power relations between individuals, but the Chaotic part remains intact: it's all about the individuals.

Cheers, -- N

 

[tuxgeo]

I know, since alignment was pruned there is no controversy left in the system. However, today something interesting occurred to me. What if the ethics axis (lawful - chaotic) represents how a character looks upon others and the morale axis (good - evil) represents themselves. Such that a lawful character assumes others are good. A chaotic character assumes others are evil.

Examples:

A lawful good paladin is good and treats others as if they too are good (generously).

A chotic good avenger is good but treats others as if they are evil (suspiciously).

A lawful evil bandit is evil but treats others as if they are good (courteously).

A chaotic evil warlord is evil and treats others as if they too are evil (belligerently).

What do you think? . . . .

I think that falls down immediately: If a lawful good paladin treated everybody as if they are good, he would have nobody to smite, and should not even bother training to be a paladin. The generosity mentioned is a part of the paladin's goodness ("charity" in the form of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt), not of the paladin's lawfulness.
Similarly, a chaotic evil warlord could treat others as if they are good, but actually mean by this that he expects them to behave as good people do, making them better suckers and slaves for him, since they will charitably give him the benefit of the doubt when perhaps they shouldn't.
Overall, if it were this easy to make 2-axis alignment work clearly, I believe that WotC would have kept it in 4e: the clarity would have prevented the eternal arguments about alignment, and WotC wouldn't have had to develop the compromise alignment system that they did include in 4e.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think that falls down immediately: If a lawful good paladin treated everybody as if they are good, he would have nobody to smite, and should not even bother training to be a paladin. The generosity mentioned is a part of the paladin's goodness ("charity" in the form of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt), not of the paladin's lawfulness.
Similarly, a chaotic evil warlord could treat others as if they are good, but actually mean by this that he expects them to behave as good people do, making them better suckers and slaves for him, since they will charitably give him the benefit of the doubt when perhaps they shouldn't.
Overall, if it were this easy to make 2-axis alignment work clearly, I believe that WotC would have kept it in 4e: the clarity would have prevented the eternal arguments about alignment, and WotC wouldn't have had to develop the compromise alignment system that they did include in 4e.

I honestly think fixing alignment was a mistake. Alignment is the most fun we've had with D&D any edition to date. The controversy is a blast.

I think you pretty much understand the idea. I just want to point out that a paladin still can be disappointed and smite away.

 

[Lancelot]

Interesting...

I'm trying to think through this, but replacing "treats others as if..." with "assumes society is...".

Hence, an LG character is good and assumes society is inherently good. Evil is an unnatural aberration to be smote, and there is little need for subterfuge (because most people are right-thinking and honorable). Those in power (rich, noble, whatever) usually attained their position through honorable means, or on the basis of genuine talents.

A CG character is good, but assumes society is usually corrupt. Those in power probably got there by underhanded means, and shouldn't be trusted. Fighting against evil is a risky proposition, as the majority of people probably won't support your actions - hence subterfuge may be required.

An LE character is evil, but assumes society is good. They know that the majority of people will not understand or accept their actions, so there is a need to act in a way that doesn't overtly offend their laws or sensibilities. However, the intelligent LE character knows that "good" infers certain restraints... which "evil" doesn't have. They exploit the gullibility and social conventions of others to gain a personal advantage ("Do as I say, not as I do").

A CE character is evil, and assumes everyone else is just as evil. Given they believe nobody else will ever show them a moment's compassion or generosity, there is no need to hold back ("Do unto others before they do unto you").

Given those definitions, I'd agree Batman (and probably Iron Man) is probably CG. Captain America and Spiderman would be LG. The Kingpin and Norman Osborne (currently) would be LE, whereas the Joker is CE. Doctor Doom might be NE (his personal actions are evil, and he likely assumes that society is a mix of both good and evil with neither dominant).

Magneto would probably be CN (believes society is generally evil and out to get mutants, with his personal actions varying between good and evil).

Strangely, Loki would probably be LE with this definition (evil personal actions, but acknowledging that society is generally good-aligned - reflected in a willingness to cooperate with the Aesir in the past, and to perform most of his/her worst mischief via subterfuge).

 

[Umbran]

What if the ethics axis (lawful - chaotic) represents how a character looks upon others and the morale axis (good - evil) represents themselves. Such that a lawful character assumes others are good. A chaotic character assumes others are evil.

Well, note that there's plenty of folks still playing a system that has alignment, so for them the question is not at all academic.

I don't think this interpretation is at all supported by the rulebooks as they stand. That, however, won't stop you from playing it that way.

More troublesome, however, is how you'd adjudicate it. With the more common interpretations of alignment, the GM can look at the action, and not worry about the motive - an act is good or evil, lawful or chaotic (for whatever definition the GM uses for those terms), based on their results. Did the act help people, or harm innocents? Did it increase individual freedom or support a system? And so on.

The results of actions are not suspicious or trusting. That moves the entirety of that axis into motivations, inside the character's head - to what the character is assuming before he makes a choice of actions. That is not a place the GM knows better than the player, making it difficult to work with.

 

[Nivenus]

The way I played it, Law/Chaos was the person's attitude to organizational structures in general. A Lawful person felt happy when there was a System; a Chaotic person disliked Systems and only trusted individuals.

E.g.: a Lawful person might hate a specific corrupt bureaucrat, but would respect the office he represented; a Chaotic person would not see the "office he represented" at all, and would only see the world in terms of relations between individuals.

A Chaotic Good person might see the world in terms of debts of honor & obligations between individuals, while a Chaotic Evil person only sees the world in terms of power relations between individuals, but the Chaotic part remains intact: it's all about the individuals.

Cheers, -- N

This. Nifft wins the thread.

Alignment is lined up, pretty neatly, as based upon behavior rather than belief. Otherwise, you fall into the trap of everyone with the same alignment has the same personality. Compare, for instance, Roy and Durkon from Oots (or Miko, pre-fall for that matter). They're all lawful good. But they don't have the same personality. What binds them together is one alignment is not that they're uber-good or see the best in everyone (quite the contrary actually - since Roy tends to be far more cynical than Elan, who's chaotic good). Rather, it's because they respect tradition and authority, even when they oppose it. Lawful characters are about duty, rules, regulation, etc. Chaotic characters are about spontaneity, innovation, and independent-mindedness.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Interesting...

I'm trying to think through this, but replacing "treats others as if..." with "assumes society is...".

Hence, an LG character is good and assumes society is inherently good. Evil is an unnatural aberration to be smote, and there is little need for subterfuge (because most people are right-thinking and honorable). Those in power (rich, noble, whatever) usually attained their position through honorable means, or on the basis of genuine talents.

A CG character is good, but assumes society is usually corrupt. Those in power probably got there by underhanded means, and shouldn't be trusted. Fighting against evil is a risky proposition, as the majority of people probably won't support your actions - hence subterfuge may be required.

An LE character is evil, but assumes society is good. They know that the majority of people will not understand or accept their actions, so there is a need to act in a way that doesn't overtly offend their laws or sensibilities. However, the intelligent LE character knows that "good" infers certain restraints... which "evil" doesn't have. They exploit the gullibility and social conventions of others to gain a personal advantage ("Do as I say, not as I do").

A CE character is evil, and assumes everyone else is just as evil. Given they believe nobody else will ever show them a moment's compassion or generosity, there is no need to hold back ("Do unto others before they do unto you").

Given those definitions, I'd agree Batman (and probably Iron Man) is probably CG. Captain America and Spiderman would be LG. The Kingpin and Norman Osborne (currently) would be LE, whereas the Joker is CE. Doctor Doom might be NE (his personal actions are evil, and he likely assumes that society is a mix of both good and evil with neither dominant).

Magneto would probably be CN (believes society is generally evil and out to get mutants, with his personal actions varying between good and evil).

Strangely, Loki would probably be LE with this definition (evil personal actions, but acknowledging that society is generally good-aligned - reflected in a willingness to cooperate with the Aesir in the past, and to perform most of his/her worst mischief via subterfuge).

Nice! This is what I mean.

-Umbran, this is not supported by any books I've read. It's perhaps just a new angle. Maybe it can help when defining fictional characters. Give it a go, it's fun!

 

[Frostmarrow]

Watchmen

According to this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kji18ydvMHM]YouTube - The Watchmen Alignment Game *SPOILERS*[/ame]

We have this line up for The Watchmen:

Rorschach: LG
Nite Owl: NG
Silk Spectre: CG
Dr Manhattan: N
Comedian: CN
Ozymandias: LE

By applying the shorthand suggested (as revised by Lancelot) in this thread we get:

Rorschach: CN
Nite Owl: NG
Silk Spectre: LG
Dr Manhattan: N
Comedian: LN
Ozymandias: LE

Rorschach has little reason to trust anybody. He sees character flaws in all those around him. He thinks of himself as pure good. Sadly, he is delusional. He might work against evil but his methods are uncompromising and irreversible.

Comedian 'gets it'. What he gets is that there is much evil in this world, even in himself. However, for the joke to work the world needs to be mostly good. So Comedian, cynical as he might be, is still Lawful because he fundamentally believes the world is good. He is murdered for this belief.

 

[Umbran]

-Umbran, this is not supported by any books I've read. It's perhaps just a new angle. Maybe it can help when defining fictional characters. Give it a go, it's fun!

Hey, dude, you asked a question: "What if..."

I gave an answer: "It becomes difficult to adjudicate PC alignment on the ethics axis."

If you don't want answers, don't ask the question