D&D General Alignment: the problem is Chaos

[FrozenNorth]

Are you trying to find definitions that better model the existing situation? Or to define a new paradigm for alignment?

If the first, there are at least a few archetypes that would change alignment under the new definition: the assassin that follows a strict code is generally thought of as LE, but would be CE under this definition.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Just ignoring the law or order when it annoys your being ambivalent about it as a goal feels like neutral, doesn't it? To be on opposition, doesn't Chaos need to be actively working against whichever you pick of law or order being opposite of it.

Would that suggest that alignment (in either the Good-Evil or the Lawful-Chaos axis) is asymmetric?

I mean, if you are generally Good, but you orchestrate ONE massacre, I don’t think you are Good. But a generally Evil person can definitely do the occasional Good deed (even an extremely Good deed) and still be Evil.

To get back to the point you raised, maybe it is harder to stay Lawful than Chaotic, as you can remain Chaotic without actively opposing Law.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Exactly! Chaotic Good seems completely bonkers, and I don't think large groups of humans can pull it off. Yet one of the most important demi-human groups have been canonically Chaotic Good since 1e. I think that's interesting, and I came to this definition precisely to explain the behavior of elves. The result is weird, and I like that.

In most depictions, Elves appear just as stodgy and traditionalist than dwarves. Less grumpy though, but “grumpy” isn’t an alignment.

 

[Yaarel]

Heh, one way that Elf proves itself to be Chaotic, is all of those individuals magically becoming hundreds of different subraces.

 

[Cadence]

Would that suggest that alignment (in either the Good-Evil or the Lawful-Chaos axis) is asymmetric?

I mean, if you are generally Good, but you orchestrate ONE massacre, I don’t think you are Good. But a generally Evil person can definitely do the occasional Good deed (even an extremely Good deed) and still be Evil.

To get back to the point you raised, maybe it is harder to stay Lawful than Chaotic, as you can remain Chaotic without actively opposing Law.

Is the Evil person doing the Good deed because it makes them happy or gets the something in the future, or because it's what they are supposed to do. (Which of course brings up the question of if you're actually good when you do the right thing but only to guarantee a future really big award...).

 

[FrozenNorth]

Is the Evil person doing the Good deed because it makes them happy or gets the something in the future, or because it's what they are supposed to do. (Which of course brings up the question of if you're actually good when you do the right thing but only to guarantee a future really big award...).

Maybe the Evil person just had a really good day. His plans for conquest are going well, so he decides to throw a festival in the capital. Not as good publicity, but simply because he is in a good mood.

Or maybe he spares the princess because she reminds him of his first wife, who is the only person he truly loved.

 

[Aldarc]

All of this is very reasonable. I prefer Neutral to mean "indifferent to" rather than middle ground. So a Neutral Good character is not kinda-Lawful or kinda-Chaotic, but rather cares much more about Good. They are the ones who will protest injustice before the Lawful Goods, because they care more about being Good. But again, your view seems fine.

Are you familiar with how alignment was done in 4e? Your sense of Neutral is not far off "Unaligned." The game also combined Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil into "Evil" as well as Chaotic Good and Neutral Good into simply "Good." Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil were kept, but re-contextualized under a mythic Chaoskampf motif that permeated the new cosmology.

 

[Cadence]

Maybe the Evil person just had a really good day. His plans for conquest are going well, so he decides to throw a festival in the capital. Not as good publicity, but simply because he is in a good mood.

Or maybe he spares the princess because she reminds him of his first wife, who is the only person he truly loved.

Or maybe he'd be "Good" if everyone would just cooperate and trust him...

(from Avengers #25 in 1966 by Lee and Heck, with Ayers, Goldberg, and Rosen)

 

[Umbran]

As I noted right at the top, no, no we don't. And I even apologized!

And this is the essence of chaos.

"I know what the social order or collective opinion says should happen, but I have a better idea, so I'm going to do it anyway." The exerise of personal freedom above the agreed-upon will of society is chaos, in a nutshell.

 

[Yaarel]

I was watching the old animation Aeon Flux. (Much different and better than the later movie based on it.)

The animation was amazingly subversive.

The premise is something like Goodchild is a tyrant and Aeon Flux is a heroic rebel fighting against him to liberate the population.

However, when one actually pays attention to what is happening during the story, Goodchild is actually a selfless altruist dedicating every resource to improve the lives of everyone around him. Meanwhile, Aeon Flux is a selfish bastard who keeps on screwing up Goodchilds plans, and making life horrible for everyone.

Probably the characters are Goodchild (LG) and Aeon Flux (C)