Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How do Governments Align?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6789966" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>That's true, but let us concede that though that's what they do, they come far being able to in any way completely describe particular philosophies or being able to dictate to an particular character exactly how they will behave in all circumstances. Obviously, they are but two spectrums in a vast multitude of different ways we could describe belief. What they do is give us very broad buckets, or alignments, that have a certain mythic resonance and which are suited to a fairly large percentage of traditional high fantasy.</p><p></p><p>And, yes, I agree that they don't describe groups nearly as well as an individual, as really just about any group label when applied to a group will misidentify individuals. But on the other hand, neither do I expect this description to be anything other than the same sort of broad shorthand that it is when applied to individuals. So, if in a group with 100 members, 60 are CG, 10 are NG, 10 are CN, 10 are N, and the other 10 are a mix of other alignments, I'm fairly happy to label this group Chaotic Good in its collective tendencies. That doesn't mean that every action taken by the group or by each individual member of the group will conform to the highest ideals of Chaotic Good, but on the whole you'd be rather surprised if they group as a whole was organized in ways incompatible with the beliefs of CG. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First of all, let me point you back up to my third paragraph of post #27. Just because someone calls something evil, doesn't necessarily within the alignment framework make it evil. In the above argument, it's possible that neither group has correctly identified what evil is and are arguing over matters of say law and chaos and merely believe that chaos or law is 'evil' because of their personal biases and are using 'evil' to merely mean wrong. Or its possible that they are actually arguing over something that is neutral with respect to law, chaos, good, and evil and amounts to only an incidental preference with no real deep alignment meaning at all. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would say that that is important, but not that that is all that determines what an alignment is. And for that matter, for the purposes of our game system, we don't have to be even that intellectual about it. What truly determines whether a government is good or evil in D&D is, after we have made mutually exclusive, space filling, and non-contradictory definitions to go with all our labels (even if these are just Aristolian lists), what bucket the DM throws the mode of behavior or beliefs into that corresponds to his definition.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely. And this is I think an important point many people miss. In the terms I've been outlining, a government experiencing a wave of crime and violence might move to ban private citizens from carrying bladed weapons longer than 8" or something of the sort. And this move might well be equally supported by Lawful Good and Lawful Evil types, each for their own but related reasons. Particularly in how they openly discuss their purposes and goals, each might well speak the same language. To a Chaotic Good person, who though they might understand the desire to preserve life, there will be little distinction between the LG persons and the LE persons. Thus, there is the potential for even a violent dispute between LG and CG persons, even when in many ways they share the same goals. And likewise, there is a very great danger that a LG person, in hearing of a dispute - will assume that the CG person is as wrong as a CE one, and just as dangerous, and certainly through their devotion to Chaos a great enabler of 'evil'.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Err... I think at this point, even though there remains a lot of disagreement over what Lawful means, most people have already abandoned the attractive seeming but ultimately unsustainable idea that it means 'obeys the laws of the land'. I'd ask that you go back and reread some of my posts describing differences in the outlook between Lawful and Chaotic individuals.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Be as it may, it still makes for interesting short hand. If I say that a nation is predominately LE, images immediately spring to mind as to what sort of things this might mean - draconian punishments, servile bureaucrats, ruthless lords, fascism, slavery, oppression, secret police, inquisitors, rigorous control over all aspects of a persons live, and militarism. Likewise, if I say that a nation is predominately CG, a very different set of images spring to mind. So while the system may be far from perfect, until you produce one that is obviously vastly superior, you are likely to find people still using the alignment system to describe governments in very general terms.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6789966, member: 4937"] That's true, but let us concede that though that's what they do, they come far being able to in any way completely describe particular philosophies or being able to dictate to an particular character exactly how they will behave in all circumstances. Obviously, they are but two spectrums in a vast multitude of different ways we could describe belief. What they do is give us very broad buckets, or alignments, that have a certain mythic resonance and which are suited to a fairly large percentage of traditional high fantasy. And, yes, I agree that they don't describe groups nearly as well as an individual, as really just about any group label when applied to a group will misidentify individuals. But on the other hand, neither do I expect this description to be anything other than the same sort of broad shorthand that it is when applied to individuals. So, if in a group with 100 members, 60 are CG, 10 are NG, 10 are CN, 10 are N, and the other 10 are a mix of other alignments, I'm fairly happy to label this group Chaotic Good in its collective tendencies. That doesn't mean that every action taken by the group or by each individual member of the group will conform to the highest ideals of Chaotic Good, but on the whole you'd be rather surprised if they group as a whole was organized in ways incompatible with the beliefs of CG. First of all, let me point you back up to my third paragraph of post #27. Just because someone calls something evil, doesn't necessarily within the alignment framework make it evil. In the above argument, it's possible that neither group has correctly identified what evil is and are arguing over matters of say law and chaos and merely believe that chaos or law is 'evil' because of their personal biases and are using 'evil' to merely mean wrong. Or its possible that they are actually arguing over something that is neutral with respect to law, chaos, good, and evil and amounts to only an incidental preference with no real deep alignment meaning at all. I would say that that is important, but not that that is all that determines what an alignment is. And for that matter, for the purposes of our game system, we don't have to be even that intellectual about it. What truly determines whether a government is good or evil in D&D is, after we have made mutually exclusive, space filling, and non-contradictory definitions to go with all our labels (even if these are just Aristolian lists), what bucket the DM throws the mode of behavior or beliefs into that corresponds to his definition. Absolutely. And this is I think an important point many people miss. In the terms I've been outlining, a government experiencing a wave of crime and violence might move to ban private citizens from carrying bladed weapons longer than 8" or something of the sort. And this move might well be equally supported by Lawful Good and Lawful Evil types, each for their own but related reasons. Particularly in how they openly discuss their purposes and goals, each might well speak the same language. To a Chaotic Good person, who though they might understand the desire to preserve life, there will be little distinction between the LG persons and the LE persons. Thus, there is the potential for even a violent dispute between LG and CG persons, even when in many ways they share the same goals. And likewise, there is a very great danger that a LG person, in hearing of a dispute - will assume that the CG person is as wrong as a CE one, and just as dangerous, and certainly through their devotion to Chaos a great enabler of 'evil'. Err... I think at this point, even though there remains a lot of disagreement over what Lawful means, most people have already abandoned the attractive seeming but ultimately unsustainable idea that it means 'obeys the laws of the land'. I'd ask that you go back and reread some of my posts describing differences in the outlook between Lawful and Chaotic individuals. Be as it may, it still makes for interesting short hand. If I say that a nation is predominately LE, images immediately spring to mind as to what sort of things this might mean - draconian punishments, servile bureaucrats, ruthless lords, fascism, slavery, oppression, secret police, inquisitors, rigorous control over all aspects of a persons live, and militarism. Likewise, if I say that a nation is predominately CG, a very different set of images spring to mind. So while the system may be far from perfect, until you produce one that is obviously vastly superior, you are likely to find people still using the alignment system to describe governments in very general terms. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How do Governments Align?
Top