The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Here are some of my thoughts on the subject... please critique (but be nice... 
)
I sometimes wonder about alignments and often think we have the whole concept backwards... we talk about alignments in terms of actions.
In my mind, anyway, alignment has always been about thought-processes and internal motivations... the "why" behind a character's choice of actions... often unconsciously so.
Obviously there are abstracted absolutes of law and chaos and good and evil in D&D... hence we have spells, planes, and so on with the "good" or "evil" or "lawful" or "chaotic" descriptor and phrases such as "doing X is an evil/lawful/good/chaotic act."
But alignment, in my mind, is all about a worldview... the actions resultant from that worldview are second- or third- generation evidences of the worldview (at best).
In my mind, things are fairly simple as far as figuring out alignments, but YMMV.
For the Good-Evil axis, I tend to think of "comfort, pleasure, and/or safety" (hereinafter CPS) as motivating factors...
Good - "The need of the many for CPS outweighs the need for CPS of myself. An ideal solution is one where all get CPS, but if that is not feasible, the best solution is the one in which the largest number of people get CPS, regardless of whether I myself am among that number."
In other words, the good character is focused on the CPS of the many and not so much on the CPS himself. He is liable to work for the CPS of the many even if it costs him CPS. Another word for this might be "selfless" or "self-sacrificing." However, he probably does not feel like a martyr for his efforts - it's not a problem for him to give up a little CPS if he knows that a lot of people - particularly people he cares about - are getting much more CPS (in aggregate) than he gives up. His focus is outward - he cares very much about the effects of his actions on others - much more so than he cares about the effects of his actions upon himself. This does not prevent a little enlightened self-interest (he knows if he doesn't at least take some care of himself, he may become a burden to others instead of being able to help them), but his focus is still outward.
Evil - "The need for my own comfort or safety or pleasure is paramount above the needs of others. Steps should be taken to maximize the amount of my own pleasure, comfort, and safety, regardless of the consequences to the pleasure, comfort and safety of others."
This is the "selfish" approach - the "I want life to go well for me regardless of the cost to others." When forced to give up even a little CPS, he feels horribly wronged, even if that little sacrifice leads to huge dividends of CPS for others. He literally doesn't care whether others get CPS; in fact, in the back of his mind, he may feel that if anyone else is getting any CPS, it should be going to him instead. His focus is completely inward - it is all about self, and he tends to either not notice or not care about the effects his actions have on others. He will not take actions that increase the CPS of others unless such actions would also increase his own CPS. If an action exists that would increase the CPS of others without causing him to lose CPS (but not gain it either), he won't take it.
Neutral - "I should get as much comfort, safety, and pleasure as I can without taking that comfort, safety, and pleasure from others."
This is the "balanced" approach - the neutral wants to increase his own CPS, but is keenly aware that his attempts to gain this may affect the CPS of others. Any action that increases his own CPS without cost to the CPS of others, he will take. Any action that increases the CPS of others without cost to his own CPS, he will take. Any action that requires a trade-off (for others to gain CPS, he must lose CPS and vice versa) may or may not be taken; he considers these on a case-by-case basis. At times he may be willing to give up a little for others, and at times, he may sacrifice a little to help others, but on average, he takes as much as he gives.
Now, I look at the Law/Chaos axis... this axis does not reflect what a character wants to do (as far as increasing CPS) but rather how he usually carries it out.
Law - Law to me means ordered, disciplined, regular processes... usually the so-called "Law of the Land" is the best vehicle for this. The Lawful character seeks to increase CPS (whether he is seeking to increase his own CPS or others CPS or both depends the good-evil axis, not the law-chaos axis - but in either case, his goal is to promote CPS for SOMEONE) by using well-thought out, disciplined, regular approaches... usually with the help of the law of the land so that everyone recognizes the validity of the change. After all, if someone is constantly undoing your change, it does not promote long-term CPS growth (at least in the eyes of the Lawful).
Lawful, for the most part, assigns regular consequences to actions - if you do X, then Y will happen to you every time. Similarly, if you never do X, you never have to worry about Y happening to you. This means disciplined and principled, rather than "in accordance with the laws of the land." Lawfuls strictly adhere to their own sets of principles (e.g., the Mafia is, in its own way, a Lawful organization - there are regular consequences in the "if you pay, nobody gets hurt; if you don't pay, people get hurt"). Exactly what principles govern a character's actions may vary a little bit (hence you can see differences among Lawful Evil and Lawful Good or even between two Lawful Goods), but the guiding principle is causality - A always implies B.
The Lawful character believes that discipline (self-discipline included) is the best route to guaranteeing CPS (for whom that CPS should be guaranteed is on the good-evil axis). A Lawful character has a "set of rules" that he accepts and lives by (these rules may be self-created or he may accept and adopt the rules of another organization/individual as his own). This also means that if a law exists that is in contradiction to a principle the character accepts, the character sees that law as "wrong" (note that I didn't say good or evil, just wrong) and will probably work to change it and/or ignore it.
Finally, the Lawful character is a big believer in team. He believes that a group of individuals working together with the same goals and principles can accomplish much more together than they could individually. The Lawful character relies on others of similar mindsets and trusts them to help him pursue CPS.
Chaotic - The chaotic mindset is that rules and laws and principles tend to get in the way of the pursuit of CPS. After all, if you have to follow a rule, that might not be exactly comfortable and pleasurable, right? Discipline, especially self-discipline, is hard and unpleasureable. Yuk. That CAN'T be the right way to CPS. There is also a lot of individualism here - "if you want CPS, you have to go take care of it yourself."
Similarly, chaotics aren't big on consequences (particularly "arbitrary" ones inflicted by lawfuls). They want to dissociate consequence from action... ESPECIALLY "artificially caused" consequences. While a Chaotic might be slightly bothered because he can't fly away when he jumps (thanks to the law of gravity), he doesn't let it get to him... he recognizes that there are some natural consequences to actions that are unavoidable. When he gets thrown in jail for jumping because jumping is illegal, he gets annoyed - that's not a "natural" consequence, so why make it a arbitrary consequence of an act? The chaotic tends to think laws make things too complicated and in a show of protest, tend to break them, "just because I can." Chaotics don't want anyone telling them what they can and can't do in the pursuit of CPS and usually get annoyed when someone tries to impose "artificial restrictions" of law and principle on them.
Chaotics don't think about the law at all. They may obey the laws sometimes because the law happens to condone their behavior, but "is this legal?" almost never enters into their minds... "is this illegal? Good! Stupid Rules..." is much more common. Also, because of their individualistic nature, tend to believe in self more than in a team.
Neutrals - Again, neutrals tend to walk a balance... sometimes laws are necessary to keep CPS coming for all (for example, making sure everyone gives up their "right to kill another" with a law like THOU SHALT NOT KILL is probably conducive to everyone's CPS since they no longer have to worry about being killed), but too much law and principle can get in the way of CPS. They will likely go with a law or principle if it seems reasonable, but won't be thrilled by excessive punishments or excessive numbers of laws or principles. For the most part, they obey the "law" because it's more convenient to do so - but sometimes the law is inconvenient and if the inconvenience of obeying a law exceeds the inconvenience of breaking it, they have no problems breaking / ignoring the law. They are concerned with the laws but not obsessed with them. They will use others and work in groups when it is convenient, but are comfortable striking out alone when it is not.
Now, we can simply cross these to gain the nine alignments... and we get some rather unsurprising results.
Lawful Good - Thinks rules/laws are the best way to achieve CPS for the majority, though there may be some cost to his own pursuit of CPS. Is concerned with "playing by the rules" and is willing to suffer a bit of personal inconvenience for doing so. Note that the exact "set of rules" he believes in may be subject to interpretation.
Lawful Neutral - Thinks rules/laws are the best way to achieve CPS - both for the majority and for himself. Because of this, he tends to fight very hard to uphold the principles he believes in because he is convinced that it benefits him personally AND everyone else. ("Pure Lawful") Again, the exact "set of rules" he believes in has some leeway.
Lawful Evil - Thinks rules/laws are the best way for him to achieve CPS. Backstabs, uses loopholes, twists meanings, and does everything in his power to manipulate the rules to serve him. Wants laws because he wants something "higher than himself" to fight his battles for him (after all, fighting a battle yourself can reduce CPS). Very much likes to make the rules (to ensure they are most advantageous to him). Usually not a violent individual - prefers to let others he trusts do his dirty work.
Neutral Good - Selfless, tries to obtain CPS for as many as possible even at cost to himself, follows the laws until they become inconvenient. Purely interested in promoting CPS - by law or by other means is fine by him. ("Pure Good")
True Neutral - In balance - will use rules (or not) to try to get CPS for both himself and others. Not overly interested in self, but not overly self-sacrificing, either. Will use rules to advance the procurement of CPS, but not overly reliant on them. ("True Neutral")
Neutral Evil - Selfish, tries to obtain CPS for himself at any cost. Rules are convenient to tie others up in, but inconvenient to play by. Uses the rules as much as needed to achieve his own ends (and CPS), but perfectly willing to ignore/discard them in his quest for furthering his own ends ("Pure Evil").
Chaotic Good - Wants to get CPS for all, but thinks that rules are not the way to go about it. Self-sacrificing and thinks of others, but doesn't want to bother with "going through the proper channels" - wants to find the quickest, easiest way to deal with the problem and solve it. Very annoyed when rules get in his way and people condemn him for trying to do good.
Chaotic Neutral - Wants to promote CPS - sometimes for himself, sometimes for others, but really chafes at laws. Will break them "just because I can" to show others how wrong-headed their rules systems are. Not terribly self-sacrificing, but doesn't seek to exploit others either (hence "pure Chaotic").
Chaotic Evil - Seeks his own CPS at the expense of others and disdains the rules... won't really bother to play by them. Tends to do things himself rather than relying on laws and a "higher authority" to do the job - mostly because he has a complete mistrust of law in the first place. This combination of not trusting others and pursuing CPS for self tends to make for a violent individual. Usually doesn't trust others to do his dirty work for him.
This isn't a perfect explanation of how alignment works (what is) but it helps me "think" like my PC thinks. From these mindsets, I can extrapolate example reactions (though I have to define the specific "rules and principles" a given Lawful character believes in first).
It's also a good point that a Lawful Good can be more strongly Lawful than Good (or more Good than Lawful) and so on. But the most important thing to remember, I think, is that Alignment is best reflected over time - Alignment makes behavior/decisions; behavior/decisions do not make Alignment.
However, decisions REFLECT alignment and if a *pattern* of decisions develops that reflects a different alignment than the character allegedly is, it's time to look at an alignment change.
The holiest of paladins may slip and commit a slightly "evil" or "chaotic" act once in a while... this is why we have the "atonement" spell - the character's alignment hasn't changed, but he has "stained" himself with that act and needs to atone. Similarly, the most Chaotic Evil of demons may enter into a pact (a lawful act) for a period of time to accomplish a goal - this does not turn the demon Lawful, any more than a demon sparing a helpless child on a whim during a mass murder spree makes him good.
This subscribes to the "black box" theory - the actual alignment of a character is encased in a "black box" and we can't really see it. However, from time to time the character's box is "probed" with a choice. By seeing the decision the character makes (that comes "out of the box"), we gain some insight into the character's alignment. One or two probes isn't enough... but after 20 or 30 probes, we probably have a good idea of what is inside the box and at that time, we can check to see if the character's "declared" alignment matches his "real" alignment... and if they are different, well, it's time to change his "declared" alignment to his "real" alignment.
Of course, alignment can shift over time, but there's my 2 cents on the issue. A long 2 cents, but 2 cents nonetheless.
--The Sigil
)I sometimes wonder about alignments and often think we have the whole concept backwards... we talk about alignments in terms of actions.
In my mind, anyway, alignment has always been about thought-processes and internal motivations... the "why" behind a character's choice of actions... often unconsciously so.
Obviously there are abstracted absolutes of law and chaos and good and evil in D&D... hence we have spells, planes, and so on with the "good" or "evil" or "lawful" or "chaotic" descriptor and phrases such as "doing X is an evil/lawful/good/chaotic act."
But alignment, in my mind, is all about a worldview... the actions resultant from that worldview are second- or third- generation evidences of the worldview (at best).
In my mind, things are fairly simple as far as figuring out alignments, but YMMV.
For the Good-Evil axis, I tend to think of "comfort, pleasure, and/or safety" (hereinafter CPS) as motivating factors...
Good - "The need of the many for CPS outweighs the need for CPS of myself. An ideal solution is one where all get CPS, but if that is not feasible, the best solution is the one in which the largest number of people get CPS, regardless of whether I myself am among that number."
In other words, the good character is focused on the CPS of the many and not so much on the CPS himself. He is liable to work for the CPS of the many even if it costs him CPS. Another word for this might be "selfless" or "self-sacrificing." However, he probably does not feel like a martyr for his efforts - it's not a problem for him to give up a little CPS if he knows that a lot of people - particularly people he cares about - are getting much more CPS (in aggregate) than he gives up. His focus is outward - he cares very much about the effects of his actions on others - much more so than he cares about the effects of his actions upon himself. This does not prevent a little enlightened self-interest (he knows if he doesn't at least take some care of himself, he may become a burden to others instead of being able to help them), but his focus is still outward.
Evil - "The need for my own comfort or safety or pleasure is paramount above the needs of others. Steps should be taken to maximize the amount of my own pleasure, comfort, and safety, regardless of the consequences to the pleasure, comfort and safety of others."
This is the "selfish" approach - the "I want life to go well for me regardless of the cost to others." When forced to give up even a little CPS, he feels horribly wronged, even if that little sacrifice leads to huge dividends of CPS for others. He literally doesn't care whether others get CPS; in fact, in the back of his mind, he may feel that if anyone else is getting any CPS, it should be going to him instead. His focus is completely inward - it is all about self, and he tends to either not notice or not care about the effects his actions have on others. He will not take actions that increase the CPS of others unless such actions would also increase his own CPS. If an action exists that would increase the CPS of others without causing him to lose CPS (but not gain it either), he won't take it.
Neutral - "I should get as much comfort, safety, and pleasure as I can without taking that comfort, safety, and pleasure from others."
This is the "balanced" approach - the neutral wants to increase his own CPS, but is keenly aware that his attempts to gain this may affect the CPS of others. Any action that increases his own CPS without cost to the CPS of others, he will take. Any action that increases the CPS of others without cost to his own CPS, he will take. Any action that requires a trade-off (for others to gain CPS, he must lose CPS and vice versa) may or may not be taken; he considers these on a case-by-case basis. At times he may be willing to give up a little for others, and at times, he may sacrifice a little to help others, but on average, he takes as much as he gives.
Now, I look at the Law/Chaos axis... this axis does not reflect what a character wants to do (as far as increasing CPS) but rather how he usually carries it out.
Law - Law to me means ordered, disciplined, regular processes... usually the so-called "Law of the Land" is the best vehicle for this. The Lawful character seeks to increase CPS (whether he is seeking to increase his own CPS or others CPS or both depends the good-evil axis, not the law-chaos axis - but in either case, his goal is to promote CPS for SOMEONE) by using well-thought out, disciplined, regular approaches... usually with the help of the law of the land so that everyone recognizes the validity of the change. After all, if someone is constantly undoing your change, it does not promote long-term CPS growth (at least in the eyes of the Lawful).
Lawful, for the most part, assigns regular consequences to actions - if you do X, then Y will happen to you every time. Similarly, if you never do X, you never have to worry about Y happening to you. This means disciplined and principled, rather than "in accordance with the laws of the land." Lawfuls strictly adhere to their own sets of principles (e.g., the Mafia is, in its own way, a Lawful organization - there are regular consequences in the "if you pay, nobody gets hurt; if you don't pay, people get hurt"). Exactly what principles govern a character's actions may vary a little bit (hence you can see differences among Lawful Evil and Lawful Good or even between two Lawful Goods), but the guiding principle is causality - A always implies B.
The Lawful character believes that discipline (self-discipline included) is the best route to guaranteeing CPS (for whom that CPS should be guaranteed is on the good-evil axis). A Lawful character has a "set of rules" that he accepts and lives by (these rules may be self-created or he may accept and adopt the rules of another organization/individual as his own). This also means that if a law exists that is in contradiction to a principle the character accepts, the character sees that law as "wrong" (note that I didn't say good or evil, just wrong) and will probably work to change it and/or ignore it.
Finally, the Lawful character is a big believer in team. He believes that a group of individuals working together with the same goals and principles can accomplish much more together than they could individually. The Lawful character relies on others of similar mindsets and trusts them to help him pursue CPS.
Chaotic - The chaotic mindset is that rules and laws and principles tend to get in the way of the pursuit of CPS. After all, if you have to follow a rule, that might not be exactly comfortable and pleasurable, right? Discipline, especially self-discipline, is hard and unpleasureable. Yuk. That CAN'T be the right way to CPS. There is also a lot of individualism here - "if you want CPS, you have to go take care of it yourself."
Similarly, chaotics aren't big on consequences (particularly "arbitrary" ones inflicted by lawfuls). They want to dissociate consequence from action... ESPECIALLY "artificially caused" consequences. While a Chaotic might be slightly bothered because he can't fly away when he jumps (thanks to the law of gravity), he doesn't let it get to him... he recognizes that there are some natural consequences to actions that are unavoidable. When he gets thrown in jail for jumping because jumping is illegal, he gets annoyed - that's not a "natural" consequence, so why make it a arbitrary consequence of an act? The chaotic tends to think laws make things too complicated and in a show of protest, tend to break them, "just because I can." Chaotics don't want anyone telling them what they can and can't do in the pursuit of CPS and usually get annoyed when someone tries to impose "artificial restrictions" of law and principle on them.
Chaotics don't think about the law at all. They may obey the laws sometimes because the law happens to condone their behavior, but "is this legal?" almost never enters into their minds... "is this illegal? Good! Stupid Rules..." is much more common. Also, because of their individualistic nature, tend to believe in self more than in a team.
Neutrals - Again, neutrals tend to walk a balance... sometimes laws are necessary to keep CPS coming for all (for example, making sure everyone gives up their "right to kill another" with a law like THOU SHALT NOT KILL is probably conducive to everyone's CPS since they no longer have to worry about being killed), but too much law and principle can get in the way of CPS. They will likely go with a law or principle if it seems reasonable, but won't be thrilled by excessive punishments or excessive numbers of laws or principles. For the most part, they obey the "law" because it's more convenient to do so - but sometimes the law is inconvenient and if the inconvenience of obeying a law exceeds the inconvenience of breaking it, they have no problems breaking / ignoring the law. They are concerned with the laws but not obsessed with them. They will use others and work in groups when it is convenient, but are comfortable striking out alone when it is not.
Now, we can simply cross these to gain the nine alignments... and we get some rather unsurprising results.
Lawful Good - Thinks rules/laws are the best way to achieve CPS for the majority, though there may be some cost to his own pursuit of CPS. Is concerned with "playing by the rules" and is willing to suffer a bit of personal inconvenience for doing so. Note that the exact "set of rules" he believes in may be subject to interpretation.
Lawful Neutral - Thinks rules/laws are the best way to achieve CPS - both for the majority and for himself. Because of this, he tends to fight very hard to uphold the principles he believes in because he is convinced that it benefits him personally AND everyone else. ("Pure Lawful") Again, the exact "set of rules" he believes in has some leeway.
Lawful Evil - Thinks rules/laws are the best way for him to achieve CPS. Backstabs, uses loopholes, twists meanings, and does everything in his power to manipulate the rules to serve him. Wants laws because he wants something "higher than himself" to fight his battles for him (after all, fighting a battle yourself can reduce CPS). Very much likes to make the rules (to ensure they are most advantageous to him). Usually not a violent individual - prefers to let others he trusts do his dirty work.
Neutral Good - Selfless, tries to obtain CPS for as many as possible even at cost to himself, follows the laws until they become inconvenient. Purely interested in promoting CPS - by law or by other means is fine by him. ("Pure Good")
True Neutral - In balance - will use rules (or not) to try to get CPS for both himself and others. Not overly interested in self, but not overly self-sacrificing, either. Will use rules to advance the procurement of CPS, but not overly reliant on them. ("True Neutral")
Neutral Evil - Selfish, tries to obtain CPS for himself at any cost. Rules are convenient to tie others up in, but inconvenient to play by. Uses the rules as much as needed to achieve his own ends (and CPS), but perfectly willing to ignore/discard them in his quest for furthering his own ends ("Pure Evil").
Chaotic Good - Wants to get CPS for all, but thinks that rules are not the way to go about it. Self-sacrificing and thinks of others, but doesn't want to bother with "going through the proper channels" - wants to find the quickest, easiest way to deal with the problem and solve it. Very annoyed when rules get in his way and people condemn him for trying to do good.
Chaotic Neutral - Wants to promote CPS - sometimes for himself, sometimes for others, but really chafes at laws. Will break them "just because I can" to show others how wrong-headed their rules systems are. Not terribly self-sacrificing, but doesn't seek to exploit others either (hence "pure Chaotic").
Chaotic Evil - Seeks his own CPS at the expense of others and disdains the rules... won't really bother to play by them. Tends to do things himself rather than relying on laws and a "higher authority" to do the job - mostly because he has a complete mistrust of law in the first place. This combination of not trusting others and pursuing CPS for self tends to make for a violent individual. Usually doesn't trust others to do his dirty work for him.
This isn't a perfect explanation of how alignment works (what is) but it helps me "think" like my PC thinks. From these mindsets, I can extrapolate example reactions (though I have to define the specific "rules and principles" a given Lawful character believes in first).
It's also a good point that a Lawful Good can be more strongly Lawful than Good (or more Good than Lawful) and so on. But the most important thing to remember, I think, is that Alignment is best reflected over time - Alignment makes behavior/decisions; behavior/decisions do not make Alignment.
However, decisions REFLECT alignment and if a *pattern* of decisions develops that reflects a different alignment than the character allegedly is, it's time to look at an alignment change.
The holiest of paladins may slip and commit a slightly "evil" or "chaotic" act once in a while... this is why we have the "atonement" spell - the character's alignment hasn't changed, but he has "stained" himself with that act and needs to atone. Similarly, the most Chaotic Evil of demons may enter into a pact (a lawful act) for a period of time to accomplish a goal - this does not turn the demon Lawful, any more than a demon sparing a helpless child on a whim during a mass murder spree makes him good.
This subscribes to the "black box" theory - the actual alignment of a character is encased in a "black box" and we can't really see it. However, from time to time the character's box is "probed" with a choice. By seeing the decision the character makes (that comes "out of the box"), we gain some insight into the character's alignment. One or two probes isn't enough... but after 20 or 30 probes, we probably have a good idea of what is inside the box and at that time, we can check to see if the character's "declared" alignment matches his "real" alignment... and if they are different, well, it's time to change his "declared" alignment to his "real" alignment.
Of course, alignment can shift over time, but there's my 2 cents on the issue. A long 2 cents, but 2 cents nonetheless.
--The Sigil
