Not clear what's going on here --
+1 to NG = 20, but you've also given +3 to LN and +6 to NE. Redo?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Not clear what's going on here --
+1 to NG = 20, but you've also given +3 to LN and +6 to NE. Redo?
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I have to admit that I was a little surprised that all three chaotic alignments went out first. I have three possible explanations-
1. In my experience only, "chaotic" anything is often (not always, but often) a synonym for poor roleplaying. "I want to do what I want = chaotic." Now, as you articulated, that doesn't have to be the case, but it can be annoying- and the structure of the survivor threads is that people's petty annoyances tend to surface!
2. It is a common idea that "chaotic" in general is bad. See, for example, OD&D (chaotic = evil). Or WFRP (battling against the forces of chaos). And so on. Chaos just doesn't have a great rep. Or a good PR firm.
3. Because.
Ironically, my experience has been exactly the opposite of #2. "Law" in general is bad, Law crushes all individualism, Law despises freedom, Law wants to exactly prescribe how each and every person does anything and proscribe all other behaviors. To live by the Law is to be nothing but a hive insect. (Note: *I* don't feel this way, but at least 50% of the people I've roleplayed with have been either CG or CN, and at least half of that group have looked sneeringly down their noses at my playing an LG character.)
I have to admit, though, that I find @Arial Black's characterization somewhat...humorous, or at least strange. The Bill of Rights--a codified set of principles which cannot be violated,* under pain of punishment and significant public censure--is Chaotic? Interesting. I also fail to see how "the state exists to benefit the people" is incompatible with Law. I would even go so far as to say that that is a big chunk of how I *define* Lawful Good--"Laws exist to serve the people. An unjust law is no law at all."
Chaotic Good, as I understood it, says that the State either shouldn't exist at all, or should be as minimalist as possible (defense; protection against force, fraud, theft, etc.; enforcement of contracts; and not much else)--at least, that's the fairly philosophically-rigorous libertarian ideal as promulgated by Robert Nozick, probably the best philosopher dedicated to the subject of libertarian philosophy.
Under that notion, the Colonies were not really the ideal of Chaotic Good (they did after all feel compelled to write a formal document explaining themselves and their principles), the United States under the Articles of Confederation was vaguely Chaotic (since each of the states acted independently, the Confederation Congress was essentially powerless, and each of the states basically said "FU!" to the requests to fund the federal government), and the only reason the United States survived to become the nation it is today is because These Various States agreed to adopt the new(er) Constitution, which created a central government that both could and did tax its people, and which put down the Whiskey Rebellion as a result. Even what little the Confederation Congress achieved is exactly the opposite of a "Chaotic Good" ideal--it persuaded the northern states to give up their claims to the "Northwestern Territory" (which we now call the Midwest), allowing the *federal* government to establish new states there. In other words, it denied individual states the right to settle territory and gave that power to itself.
But, if we're speaking mainly in myth and archetype, sure, I'll grant that Chaotic Good is often an American ideal. But it could also be argued to be a Communist ideal, fighting against the tyranny of those who try to control others through money and social stratification. So chew on that for a while.
*Well, unless you recognize that the government of the United States actually does allow some of these rights to be violated under specific circumstances, e.g. "Congress shall pass no law...abridging the freedom of speech," except when it totally did several times--even with the Supreme Court's approval (the Espionage Act with the 1918 "Sedition Act" amendments). Even the heavily pro-"free speech" Supreme Court of today still recognizes that "obscenity" is a valid reason to remove a speech-act, though the category of "obscene" things shrinks by the year and is nearly nonexistent now.
Last edited:
Rhogar_Rarr
First Post
Lawful Good 10
Neutral Good 18
Lawful Neutral 18
Neutral 13
Lawful Evil 22
Neutral Evil 2
Down with evil! Huzzah for being a generally good guy!
Neutral Good 18
Lawful Neutral 18
Neutral 13
Lawful Evil 22
Neutral Evil 2
Down with evil! Huzzah for being a generally good guy!
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
So what I'm getting from this... is that people like Lawful
But only if it's not Lawful Good, which is practically on the ropes already.
Arial Black
Adventurer
The names of the alignments carry some misleading baggage. 'Chaos' can mean 'random', but the Chaotic alignment is not about rolling dice to see what you have for breakfast; that compulsion would be a symptom of insanity, not a philosophical position!
'Law' is also misunderstood in a similar way. It does not mean that if a society has laws, then it must be 'lawful' by definition. For example, if there was a society that had a single, written law that said 'There will be no restrictions on the freedom of any individual to make his own choices', is this a Lawful society because there is a 'law'?
So how do you tell the difference? One way is, of course, to study every single written law in detail and come to a reasoned conclusion....but let's aim for something more useful.
Laws that are framed as 'You must...' generally tell individuals what they must do, whether they want to or not. 'You must go to church on Sunday'. 'You must work in one of these listed professions'. In societies like these, every activity is either Forbidden or Compulsory. This is a Lawful society in alignment terms.
Laws that are framed as 'You must not...' generally tell individuals or governments what they cannot do. When it comes to Freedom, logically speaking there can only be one individual in any society who has absolute freedom to do what he wants, including killing you and taking your stuff, because two people wanting the same stuff cannot both have it. In any Chaotic society that is Chaotic Good, the principle is that you have total freedom, so long as your actions do not impinge on anyone else's freedom. In Law & Order, assistant DA Jack..er..I forget his name, but he once said on this subject, 'My freedom to swing my fists ends where your nose begins'. In a Chaotic Good society, laws are framed to preserve as much individual freedom as is possible in a society where that freedom applies to all of its people rather than just one. Any laws that enshrine this attitude, this alignment, will be framed in such a way that prevents future governments on restricting those freedoms. Like being free from unreasonable search and arrest, freedom of association, etc.
Y'know, like The Bill of Rights.
Having laws does not make such a society lawful.
It's a rule of thumb. If the state's attitude is 'Individuals needs are less important than the needs of the state', then Good or Evil, this is the mark of a Lawful society.
If the state's attitude is 'The needs of the state do not supercede the rights of the individual', then Good or Evil, this is the mark of a Chaotic society; of a Free society.
As an ideal, the American state is a Chaotic state. I don't mean that it's random or supports anarchy, but that it proposes freedom of the individual as its highest ideal, and its laws are framed in such a way that the government may not take these freedoms away.
Ideally, anyway. In practice, well, ask around Guantanamo Bay.
delericho
Legend
I disagree. I'm inclined to think it was intended to be Lawful, but that the Constitution itself was Neutral Good. Because the Founding Fathers recognised that there most certainly had to be laws, and that those laws were drafted for the good of society, but they also recognised that if the power of government were not explicitly limited then the result could become tyranny all too easily.
And so they used the law to codify certain freedoms as being absolute and untouchable, while still leaving wide latitude for other laws to be put in place.
That strikes me as a balance - hence Neutral rather than Chaotic.
EDIT: Yeah, as Yunru indicates, perhaps we should fork this before further discussion. And, indeed, since it's liable to touch on real-world politics, perhaps Off-topic (with the appropriate tag) would be the best place...
Last edited:
