If anybody ever wanted to play around with the alignment system, there is room for change.
Where D&D-style play (from AD&D 2E onward, except of course 4E) organizes nine distinct alignments, my playing experience implies there are at least twenty distinct alignments in practice, based on three axes rather than two.
First let's look at each axis.
The moral axis: the greater good vs. the value of the individual (Good vs. Evil)
The ethical axis: the need for public order vs. individual rights (Law vs. Chaos)
The third axis we'll call the naturalistic alignment, which is active vs. passive neutrality (Apathy vs. Balance). [Whether there is a "middle ground" allowing for some apathy mixed with balance, I will leave for you as a separate thought exercise.]
Each axis has its extremes. The extremes of the first two are familiar, so we won't need to examine those.
On the naturalistic alignment there is extreme passive neutrality, which I call Apathy. Its opposite is extreme active neutrality, which is Balance.
The passively neutral person doesn't have an opinion, and can't be bothered to form one.
The actively neutral person doesn't want to make a choice, and thinks anyone who does take sides needs to be taught the virtues of tolerance.
All of the classic partially neutral alignments (NG, LN, CN, and NE) in practice fall into one of two neutralities, passive (apathetic) or active (balanced). To briefly illustrate the differences, we'll compare all four Good alignments.
Lawful good: Laws exist to serve the greater good, but where they fail, you should try to work within the system to fix those problems.
Apathetic Good: Doesn't care about law or chaos, Good is all that matters.
Balanced Good: Laws that are just and which serve the greater good should be upheld, but when justice is perverted and laws become tyrannical, it's time to fight the power.\
Chaotic Good: Rules and regulations seldom work for the best interests of everyone involved. There's always politicians who try to play the system for their own benefit and to the harm of everyone else. Let people live free.
Apathetic Lawful is rather less common than Balanced Lawful, and similarly for Apathetic Chaotic and Balanced Chaotic. The Balanced Lawful and Balanced Chaotic alignments are more accurate labels for what most gamers think of when they describe a character as "lawful neutral" or "chaotic neutral". Concern for good vs. evil still exists in the worldviews of such people, but their attitude is one of moderation rather than absence.
Rather, complete moral apathy combined with law or chaos suggests the presence of a hive mind or a purely logical, calculating, emotionless personality; many intelligent automata and some outsiders may be accurately described as Apathetic Lawful. In contrast, the Apathetic Chaotic alignment is the epitome of unreliability and instability; the personality of someone disconnected from reality (and possibly a good portion of the native population of the Far Realm) may be described as Apathetic Chaotic.
Now we approach the "true neutrals", of which there are actually four: True Balanced, Apathetic Balanced, Balanced Apathetic, and True Apathetic.
True Balanced is the "classic" druid-style true neutrality. Moderation in all things, extremism in none.
But there are also individuals who desire Balance in either the moral or the ethical axes, and are dismissive of the other. A little more abstract and difficult to pinpoint. A being who desires to balance the greater good against the needs of the individual, and is willing to use any means available to achieve this (through order or disorder), is an Apathetic Balanced personality. A being unconcerned about what is "right or wrong" but thinks a little order with your chaos is nice, would be a Balanced Apathetic.
Then you have the True Apathetics. This alignment neatly covers any living, thinking thing which we would normally describe as having no alignment whatsoever; i.e., animals and anything else with an Intelligence score of at least 1 or 2, and possibly 3.
This so far describes sixteen of the alignments.
The other four are variations on the four alignment corners, the 'zealots'.
Traditionally we consider Good or Evil to take precedence over Law or Chaos when there is a conflict between what is the "moral" thing to do versus what is the "ethical" thing to do.
A Lawful Good person will choose to resist an unjust law (good takes precedence over law).
A Chaotic Evil person will still obey a law (a lawful act) if it means a greater personal benefit than if he just went against the social grain (a chaotic act).
There are also cases where an individual may choose to accede to the ethical demands of the situation and subordinate their personal moral belief to it.
A person who is Lawful with Good tendencies will still be inclined to obey a law even if his obedience causes harm to others. He may have personal distate for the negative effects such a law may be having on its victims; nevertheless he believes in the rule of Law as superseding Good. In this he gravitates closer to the side of Law than to the side of Good, but he maintains his allegiance to Good. A Balanced or Apathetic Lawful person will never choose Good for its own sake, but will only act in accordance with its aim of pursuing the cause of Law.
Thus we have the GL, GC, EL, and EC alignments.
Because Apathy and Balance do not lend themselves to zealotry or extremism, they will not typically take precedence over a non-neutral alignment component. You will not have a character who puts their desire for moderation between Law and Chaos over their desire to uphold Good (or Evil), for example. It just doesn't work that way.
Comments?
Where D&D-style play (from AD&D 2E onward, except of course 4E) organizes nine distinct alignments, my playing experience implies there are at least twenty distinct alignments in practice, based on three axes rather than two.
First let's look at each axis.
The moral axis: the greater good vs. the value of the individual (Good vs. Evil)
The ethical axis: the need for public order vs. individual rights (Law vs. Chaos)
The third axis we'll call the naturalistic alignment, which is active vs. passive neutrality (Apathy vs. Balance). [Whether there is a "middle ground" allowing for some apathy mixed with balance, I will leave for you as a separate thought exercise.]
Each axis has its extremes. The extremes of the first two are familiar, so we won't need to examine those.
On the naturalistic alignment there is extreme passive neutrality, which I call Apathy. Its opposite is extreme active neutrality, which is Balance.
The passively neutral person doesn't have an opinion, and can't be bothered to form one.
The actively neutral person doesn't want to make a choice, and thinks anyone who does take sides needs to be taught the virtues of tolerance.
All of the classic partially neutral alignments (NG, LN, CN, and NE) in practice fall into one of two neutralities, passive (apathetic) or active (balanced). To briefly illustrate the differences, we'll compare all four Good alignments.
Lawful good: Laws exist to serve the greater good, but where they fail, you should try to work within the system to fix those problems.
Apathetic Good: Doesn't care about law or chaos, Good is all that matters.
Balanced Good: Laws that are just and which serve the greater good should be upheld, but when justice is perverted and laws become tyrannical, it's time to fight the power.\
Chaotic Good: Rules and regulations seldom work for the best interests of everyone involved. There's always politicians who try to play the system for their own benefit and to the harm of everyone else. Let people live free.
Apathetic Lawful is rather less common than Balanced Lawful, and similarly for Apathetic Chaotic and Balanced Chaotic. The Balanced Lawful and Balanced Chaotic alignments are more accurate labels for what most gamers think of when they describe a character as "lawful neutral" or "chaotic neutral". Concern for good vs. evil still exists in the worldviews of such people, but their attitude is one of moderation rather than absence.
Rather, complete moral apathy combined with law or chaos suggests the presence of a hive mind or a purely logical, calculating, emotionless personality; many intelligent automata and some outsiders may be accurately described as Apathetic Lawful. In contrast, the Apathetic Chaotic alignment is the epitome of unreliability and instability; the personality of someone disconnected from reality (and possibly a good portion of the native population of the Far Realm) may be described as Apathetic Chaotic.
Now we approach the "true neutrals", of which there are actually four: True Balanced, Apathetic Balanced, Balanced Apathetic, and True Apathetic.
True Balanced is the "classic" druid-style true neutrality. Moderation in all things, extremism in none.
But there are also individuals who desire Balance in either the moral or the ethical axes, and are dismissive of the other. A little more abstract and difficult to pinpoint. A being who desires to balance the greater good against the needs of the individual, and is willing to use any means available to achieve this (through order or disorder), is an Apathetic Balanced personality. A being unconcerned about what is "right or wrong" but thinks a little order with your chaos is nice, would be a Balanced Apathetic.
Then you have the True Apathetics. This alignment neatly covers any living, thinking thing which we would normally describe as having no alignment whatsoever; i.e., animals and anything else with an Intelligence score of at least 1 or 2, and possibly 3.
This so far describes sixteen of the alignments.
The other four are variations on the four alignment corners, the 'zealots'.
Traditionally we consider Good or Evil to take precedence over Law or Chaos when there is a conflict between what is the "moral" thing to do versus what is the "ethical" thing to do.
A Lawful Good person will choose to resist an unjust law (good takes precedence over law).
A Chaotic Evil person will still obey a law (a lawful act) if it means a greater personal benefit than if he just went against the social grain (a chaotic act).
There are also cases where an individual may choose to accede to the ethical demands of the situation and subordinate their personal moral belief to it.
A person who is Lawful with Good tendencies will still be inclined to obey a law even if his obedience causes harm to others. He may have personal distate for the negative effects such a law may be having on its victims; nevertheless he believes in the rule of Law as superseding Good. In this he gravitates closer to the side of Law than to the side of Good, but he maintains his allegiance to Good. A Balanced or Apathetic Lawful person will never choose Good for its own sake, but will only act in accordance with its aim of pursuing the cause of Law.
Thus we have the GL, GC, EL, and EC alignments.
Because Apathy and Balance do not lend themselves to zealotry or extremism, they will not typically take precedence over a non-neutral alignment component. You will not have a character who puts their desire for moderation between Law and Chaos over their desire to uphold Good (or Evil), for example. It just doesn't work that way.
Comments?
