-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
I miss CG
- Thread starter mrtomsmith
- Start date
MrGrenadine
I Cast...Brainstorm!
So close...
If you see the Chaos and Law as universal concepts, then you're probably going to have trouble with the old D&D alignment system.
The solution is to see only the Good-Evil axis as universal--as someone stated earlier, Good and Evil are forces in the universe, and how you act places you somewhere on that axis. The concept of Good has an absolute, just as the concept of Evil. Murder of another sentient being without any provocation is an evil act, everywhere. Risking your life to save the life of another is a good act. Yes--a country could decide that it is unlawful to save someone's life, or encourage the wholesale slaughter of innocents--but that would not make self-sacrifice 'evil' or murder 'good'. That would only define those acts as lawful or unlawful.
Chaos and Law, on the other hand, aren't universal, because laws change from culture to culture, country to country, state to state, religion to religion, etc.
So, to say you are Lawful, doesn't mean you obey every rule someone scrawls on a sign by the side of the road. Lawful means you abide by a set of laws. Period. Those laws may be a combination of religious observances, moral leanings, customs from your home-country--whatever. The point is that you follow them.
Chaotic, on the other hand, means that you do not abide by a set of laws--you can wear what you want, go where you want, eat what you want, cross the street when you want, etc etc.
Acting lawful or unlawful is really independent of the Good-Evil axis.
It should also be stated that as you continue to act, your place on the Good-Evil and Law-Chaos axes change, so alignment can never be a straightjacket for a character.
A character's actions define his or her alignment, not the other way around.
In other words, a 'good' character is certainly free to hack a kitten apart to hear it scream--but at the cost of slipping on the Good-Evil axis toward Evil. An 'evil' character is free to try to selflessly save said kitten--and by doing so would slip a little toward Good. All characters have free will! Alignments are merely a shorthand to describe how they would act in most cases based on how they've acted in the past.
If you see the Chaos and Law as universal concepts, then you're probably going to have trouble with the old D&D alignment system.
The solution is to see only the Good-Evil axis as universal--as someone stated earlier, Good and Evil are forces in the universe, and how you act places you somewhere on that axis. The concept of Good has an absolute, just as the concept of Evil. Murder of another sentient being without any provocation is an evil act, everywhere. Risking your life to save the life of another is a good act. Yes--a country could decide that it is unlawful to save someone's life, or encourage the wholesale slaughter of innocents--but that would not make self-sacrifice 'evil' or murder 'good'. That would only define those acts as lawful or unlawful.
Chaos and Law, on the other hand, aren't universal, because laws change from culture to culture, country to country, state to state, religion to religion, etc.
So, to say you are Lawful, doesn't mean you obey every rule someone scrawls on a sign by the side of the road. Lawful means you abide by a set of laws. Period. Those laws may be a combination of religious observances, moral leanings, customs from your home-country--whatever. The point is that you follow them.
Chaotic, on the other hand, means that you do not abide by a set of laws--you can wear what you want, go where you want, eat what you want, cross the street when you want, etc etc.
Acting lawful or unlawful is really independent of the Good-Evil axis.
It should also be stated that as you continue to act, your place on the Good-Evil and Law-Chaos axes change, so alignment can never be a straightjacket for a character.
A character's actions define his or her alignment, not the other way around.
In other words, a 'good' character is certainly free to hack a kitten apart to hear it scream--but at the cost of slipping on the Good-Evil axis toward Evil. An 'evil' character is free to try to selflessly save said kitten--and by doing so would slip a little toward Good. All characters have free will! Alignments are merely a shorthand to describe how they would act in most cases based on how they've acted in the past.
Storm-Bringer
First Post
Poorly worded?Counterspin said:
In 1st edition, the PHB was sparse but clear, and the DMG was quite explicit in the descriptions and how to use them. The 2nd edition PHB and DMG both have an entire chapter on alignment, with clear cut examples such as this:
2nd Edition PHB said:
The PHB for 3.5 is quite explicit, going so far as to give a 'template' for each alignment to guide players. Chaotic Good, "Rebel"; Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"; Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"; and so on, with at least a paragraph on each. Additionally, there are tips at the end such as, "Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit" and "Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil".
I mean, if you don't like alignment, fine. If it works out well for your group to ignore it, that's great. But let's not pretend every description of alignment is in some hidden appendix near psionics and the Random Harlot Table.
Additionally, I find it rather bizarre to hear complaints about alignment being this unreasonable straitjacket to play, but no one complains that the Wizard with 13 Str can't toss the Ancient Red dragon through a wall. It's a chance to use a different frame of reference. If, in real life, someone is the type to consider following the rules of paramount importance to a functioning society, this is a chance to try a Neutral or Chaotic mindset. On the other hand, they can also play a Lawful character, if they prefer.
To answer a previous point, in many of the games that don't have an alignment system per se, there are still rules (with degrees of optionality) that present guidelines regarding character behaviour. White Wolf's system of Nature and Demeanor may be a bit more open, but it is no less a guide to behaviour than alignment. And like alignment, it is the starting point, not the sum total.
HeavenShallBurn
First Post
Excerpted from the WorldForge d20 Wiki (still under construction, as is the system)
Alignment
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is neither prescriptive nor a straitjacket for restricting the acts your character. A character does not act their alignment, rather their acts display their alignment. However alignment is not merely a measure of the views a character has it also shows which side if any they are associated with in the endless struggle between powerful immortals and material spirits of alignment that occur in the Outer Planes. Four major alignments in two axis, each with their own ethical framework. Alignment isn't being a snippy gossip or spitting in the customer's food. Most mortal creatures are Neutral, this represents the innate mixture of all alignments within them that prevent any singular alignment from becoming foremost. In order for such mortal creatures to become aligned away from Neutrality requires significant action.
Chaos
It is one of the fundamental forces of creation most accessible to mortals in denatured form, change. Pure Chaos is when 1+1=4, unfettered by purpose or regularity it is creation unbound from stability and in its pure form it can be terrifying and beautiful all in an instant. At a more practical level Chaos is the antithesis of systems or organization. Chaos is not randomness but lack of adherence to an external process beyond itself. Those who are chaotic do not respect the structures making up a greater whole. While they may be forced to acknowledge and abide by the strictures of Order it is only through force and they will chafe and attempt to harm or topple that structure whenever feasible.
Evil
What is Evil? Evil isn't banal or a minor irritation, egging the neighbors house won't turn you evil. That NPC isn't evil because he feels angry and is mean to people. He's Evil because he steals children to sacrifice to his dark and hungry god. Or sets up caravans to be pillaged by raiders. When the orcs come he's the reason the gate was unbarred at just the wrong moment, and he prefers it that way. It's not kicking puppies for it's own sake. He knows exactly what he's doing and probably has several reasons for it. They could even be damned good reasons, tempting reasons. None of it can change those acts into anything other than an Evil.
Good
Good is eternal, it is the state of being in a morally proper relationship with respect to others. Throwing coppers to a beggar or helping a farmer raise a barn will not make you Good. Doing good acts so long as they do not impose hardship is neutrality. What makes one Good is when they do the proper thing even though it is dangerous. Defending the weak, upholding those who are downtrodden, throwing down those who are Evil. Being Good when it matters is likely to get you killed. That is nearly a definition of Good of itself, a character who does the right thing even though it may get him killed is Good.
Neutrality
Neutrality is not so much an alignment within itself as a state of equilibrium with the other four alignments. Most mortal creatures are Neutral, this represents the innate mixture of all alignments within them that prevent any singular alignment from becoming foremost. In order for such mortal creatures to become aligned away from Neutrality requires significant action. A good measure of Neutrality is that while characters will perform actions of various alignments those alignments are not so singular that the character will do regularly so when it imposes a great hardship or danger on the character.
Order
Creation has an underlying structure, all things act in accordance to their nature as parts of creation and may be apprehended by their place within the greater scheme. Order is not about legality though it creates laws, it is about patterns and how all things relate to one another. Ordered characters do not necessarily respect laws, indeed outside the universal laws of cosmic order they are malleable things that may be tainted by any number of disorderly precepts. Characters who have an Ordered component to their alignment seek to prevent breaches of cosmological law. For example breaking a contract is to such a character an act against Order as by breaking the contract it's place in the cosmic system have been weakened. Ordered characters will seek to form concrete systems of relationship between things and prevent things within the system from acting outside the defined patterns set by the system.
Unaligned
Unaligned is an inherently unnatural state. Even creatures with only minimal intelligence like animals have an alignment. To have none is to be disconnected from one of the fundamental forces of existence. Unaligned creatures come from or have been tainted by the influence of the Far Realm. An inimical place outside the cosmos whose influence can at times reach inside to effect its environs and inhabitants.
Alignment
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is neither prescriptive nor a straitjacket for restricting the acts your character. A character does not act their alignment, rather their acts display their alignment. However alignment is not merely a measure of the views a character has it also shows which side if any they are associated with in the endless struggle between powerful immortals and material spirits of alignment that occur in the Outer Planes. Four major alignments in two axis, each with their own ethical framework. Alignment isn't being a snippy gossip or spitting in the customer's food. Most mortal creatures are Neutral, this represents the innate mixture of all alignments within them that prevent any singular alignment from becoming foremost. In order for such mortal creatures to become aligned away from Neutrality requires significant action.
Chaos
It is one of the fundamental forces of creation most accessible to mortals in denatured form, change. Pure Chaos is when 1+1=4, unfettered by purpose or regularity it is creation unbound from stability and in its pure form it can be terrifying and beautiful all in an instant. At a more practical level Chaos is the antithesis of systems or organization. Chaos is not randomness but lack of adherence to an external process beyond itself. Those who are chaotic do not respect the structures making up a greater whole. While they may be forced to acknowledge and abide by the strictures of Order it is only through force and they will chafe and attempt to harm or topple that structure whenever feasible.
Evil
What is Evil? Evil isn't banal or a minor irritation, egging the neighbors house won't turn you evil. That NPC isn't evil because he feels angry and is mean to people. He's Evil because he steals children to sacrifice to his dark and hungry god. Or sets up caravans to be pillaged by raiders. When the orcs come he's the reason the gate was unbarred at just the wrong moment, and he prefers it that way. It's not kicking puppies for it's own sake. He knows exactly what he's doing and probably has several reasons for it. They could even be damned good reasons, tempting reasons. None of it can change those acts into anything other than an Evil.
Good
Good is eternal, it is the state of being in a morally proper relationship with respect to others. Throwing coppers to a beggar or helping a farmer raise a barn will not make you Good. Doing good acts so long as they do not impose hardship is neutrality. What makes one Good is when they do the proper thing even though it is dangerous. Defending the weak, upholding those who are downtrodden, throwing down those who are Evil. Being Good when it matters is likely to get you killed. That is nearly a definition of Good of itself, a character who does the right thing even though it may get him killed is Good.
Neutrality
Neutrality is not so much an alignment within itself as a state of equilibrium with the other four alignments. Most mortal creatures are Neutral, this represents the innate mixture of all alignments within them that prevent any singular alignment from becoming foremost. In order for such mortal creatures to become aligned away from Neutrality requires significant action. A good measure of Neutrality is that while characters will perform actions of various alignments those alignments are not so singular that the character will do regularly so when it imposes a great hardship or danger on the character.
Order
Creation has an underlying structure, all things act in accordance to their nature as parts of creation and may be apprehended by their place within the greater scheme. Order is not about legality though it creates laws, it is about patterns and how all things relate to one another. Ordered characters do not necessarily respect laws, indeed outside the universal laws of cosmic order they are malleable things that may be tainted by any number of disorderly precepts. Characters who have an Ordered component to their alignment seek to prevent breaches of cosmological law. For example breaking a contract is to such a character an act against Order as by breaking the contract it's place in the cosmic system have been weakened. Ordered characters will seek to form concrete systems of relationship between things and prevent things within the system from acting outside the defined patterns set by the system.
Unaligned
Unaligned is an inherently unnatural state. Even creatures with only minimal intelligence like animals have an alignment. To have none is to be disconnected from one of the fundamental forces of existence. Unaligned creatures come from or have been tainted by the influence of the Far Realm. An inimical place outside the cosmos whose influence can at times reach inside to effect its environs and inhabitants.
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
ZetaStriker said:
No, it's Optimus Prime.
It's Captain America.
It's Superman.
The portrayal of LG as a Jerkface Knight? Those guys were LN.
Sort of a tangent. Actually, just a tangent -- this is purely an alignment debate, and therefore Godwinned from the start. 
In my last campaign, I used a five-fold alignment system (sixfold, actually), which fit my needs perfectly. It basically divorces the "team" aspects of alignment from the behavioral ones, and couples the behavioral aspects of alignment with a societal norm defined within each "team".
I cribbed liberally from Magic (and Dusk):
Saintly: The "white" religion, closest to LG or LN, and related to the organized church this setting had; the alignment of knights and clerics of the good gods, and those who serve them. So long as the individual stuck to a code of honor that was within the societal norms for the church, they were fine -- tithing, charity, protecting other Saintlys.
(LG and worshippers, in 4e, of Pelor, Erathis, Melora, Tymora, Bane (eh. Shush. I like the greek mythological symbolism I've set up), Moradin, or Ioun. Those who actively worship Bane or Tymora end up different alignments...)
Pagan: The "green" religion, closest to CG, CN, or NN; the followers of the Old Ways and
those who live outside the bounds of The Church, believers in the essential goodness of everything and the perverting effects of Order on the common Good.
(G and worshippers of Corellon, Sehanine, and Lolth; Kord and Gruumsh; followers of The Shalm; various mystery cults.)
Scholastic: The "blue" religion, closest to LN or NN (but got along reasonably well with Pagans, other than their mystic trappings). Scientifically minded, unconcerned with that which cannot be comprehended, but devoted to reasonably pure pursuits in any case. They often practice relativistic morals and concentrate on side effects of their actions and personal introspection and comprehension.
(Unaligned. Worshippers of Ioun who miss the point; this alignment probably won't surive into 4e for me. It worked for my last campaign, though Followers of the Dragon Gods go here too.)
Cultic: The "red" religion, closest to CN, NE, or CE; similarly mystic to the Pagans, but with a moral compass which points "south" more often than not. Required to engage in distasteful acts for their gods and goddesses. Kind of incomprehensible because they don't subscribe to any version of The Common Good but instead reject that as a useful metric, accepting instead the furtherance of an idea completely divorced from the good/evil ethical lens (such as The Triumph of the Blood God or the Eradication of the Surface Elves or so forth).
(CE or Unaligned; The Raven Queen, followers of Gruumsh, Lolth, demons and other false gods; Tiamat, monster cults, and false prophets)
Nihilistic: The "black" religion, closest to LE. What happens when Scholastic turns evil, or Cultic keeps the obsession but loses the mystic trappings; as such, they're the most comprehensible because their acts make a twisted kind of sense. They have a similar code of conduct to Saintly, but tend to overemphasize ends over means -- individuals of great worth over common good; long term over short term -- and to be convinced of the rightness of their moral calculus.
(E. Followers of Bane formost, or Zehir, or those who deny the gods openly, secretly, or unwittingly (Asmodeus...? ).
So, not to put too fine a point on it... I can understand where the 4e alignments come from... because I've been there and I've done that. It worked like a charm
In my last campaign, I used a five-fold alignment system (sixfold, actually), which fit my needs perfectly. It basically divorces the "team" aspects of alignment from the behavioral ones, and couples the behavioral aspects of alignment with a societal norm defined within each "team".
I cribbed liberally from Magic (and Dusk):
Saintly: The "white" religion, closest to LG or LN, and related to the organized church this setting had; the alignment of knights and clerics of the good gods, and those who serve them. So long as the individual stuck to a code of honor that was within the societal norms for the church, they were fine -- tithing, charity, protecting other Saintlys.
(LG and worshippers, in 4e, of Pelor, Erathis, Melora, Tymora, Bane (eh. Shush. I like the greek mythological symbolism I've set up), Moradin, or Ioun. Those who actively worship Bane or Tymora end up different alignments...)
Pagan: The "green" religion, closest to CG, CN, or NN; the followers of the Old Ways and
those who live outside the bounds of The Church, believers in the essential goodness of everything and the perverting effects of Order on the common Good.
(G and worshippers of Corellon, Sehanine, and Lolth; Kord and Gruumsh; followers of The Shalm; various mystery cults.)
Scholastic: The "blue" religion, closest to LN or NN (but got along reasonably well with Pagans, other than their mystic trappings). Scientifically minded, unconcerned with that which cannot be comprehended, but devoted to reasonably pure pursuits in any case. They often practice relativistic morals and concentrate on side effects of their actions and personal introspection and comprehension.
(Unaligned. Worshippers of Ioun who miss the point; this alignment probably won't surive into 4e for me. It worked for my last campaign, though
Followers of the Dragon Gods go here too.)Cultic: The "red" religion, closest to CN, NE, or CE; similarly mystic to the Pagans, but with a moral compass which points "south" more often than not. Required to engage in distasteful acts for their gods and goddesses. Kind of incomprehensible because they don't subscribe to any version of The Common Good but instead reject that as a useful metric, accepting instead the furtherance of an idea completely divorced from the good/evil ethical lens (such as The Triumph of the Blood God or the Eradication of the Surface Elves or so forth).
(CE or Unaligned; The Raven Queen, followers of Gruumsh, Lolth, demons and other false gods; Tiamat, monster cults, and false prophets)
Nihilistic: The "black" religion, closest to LE. What happens when Scholastic turns evil, or Cultic keeps the obsession but loses the mystic trappings; as such, they're the most comprehensible because their acts make a twisted kind of sense. They have a similar code of conduct to Saintly, but tend to overemphasize ends over means -- individuals of great worth over common good; long term over short term -- and to be convinced of the rightness of their moral calculus.
(E. Followers of Bane formost, or Zehir, or those who deny the gods openly, secretly, or unwittingly (Asmodeus...?
).So, not to put too fine a point on it... I can understand where the 4e alignments come from... because I've been there and I've done that. It worked like a charm
M.L. Martin
Hero
ProfessorCirno said:
Sure . . . if you grant the assumption that alignment refers to a sociopolitical philosophy.
That, I think, is one of the big problems with the Lawful/Chaotic axis. The game has never reached a consensus on whether it applies to one's personal behavior (organized vs. free-spirited), political philosophy (highly structured society vs. minimally structured) or even cosmological philosophy (ordered universe vs. universe as random). Hence, there's no clear agreement on what the terms mean.
Thus, I'm happy to see universalized Lawful/Chaotic alignments sent to the slaughterhouse; while people can argue about what fits under Good and Evil, you don't see the confusion on what the terms are supposed to mean in general. If Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are defined clearly as their own thing, I think they can help the game, especially since they don't have to fit into some overall Law vs. Chaos dichotomy.
muffin_of_chaos
First Post
Someone respond to/argue with my last post please.
Similar Threads
