-
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
Celebrim
Legend
Well, since you begged for disagreement...
For mortals, there is no real distinction between the two. Since mortals aren't innately aligned, being made of prime material substance which itself isn't aligned, then the alignment of a character is simply the actions that they take. Granted, there personality might give them a propensity to particular actions, but that doesn't mean for example that all miserly characters are evil or innately evil.
You can't see an action that is both chaotic and good? You can't see an action that is both lawful and evil?
Doing something because you personally think it is right is not genericly good, but chaotic goodness. Generic goodness would see that there is a balance between external authority and personal conviction and that right understanding could come from either path, or perhaps should come from a combination of both.
Well, as Cicero says, rarely does anyone do evil to achieve evil ends. Rather they do evil because they think that there will be some good profit to it. A society can feel that evil actions are justified in order to obtain the security and prosperity of its citizens. That's a lawful evil mindset. For example, any lawful society will tend to reasons that loyalty of the citizens to one another is a virtue (because for example they will act responcibly and generously to one another in times of hardship), and thus needs to be promoted by the law. A lawful evil society will reason that the great mass of individuals are weak and worthless, and to make of them the sort of citizens that make a nation truly great they must be subject to harsh discipline. Hense, any signs of disloyalty must be promptly and harshly dealt with. Likewise, any lawful society will reason that crime is a great scourge on the community. A lawful evil society will reason that the best way to deter crime is to punish criminals punantively so that the punishment greatly exceeds the rewards of the crime.
Neither lawful evil nor chaotic evil are actively promoting evil for evil's sake. Rather both believe that the best way to achieve good is through evil. The chaotic evil person believes that evil is the best way to obtain personal security, freedom, and enjoyment. A lawful evil person believes that evil is the best way to obtain a secure, prosperous, and productive society. Only Nuetral Evil, nihilism if you will, is actively promoting evil for evils sake.
You earlier said you couldn't imagine a chaotic good act. Imagine that there exists a society which is generally lawful good and accepting of slavery. Lawful good members of this society do not believe that slavery is in and of itself evil, but do believe that slaves must be treated respectfully and compassionately by thier masters. Slavery in the ideal of this society consists of a sort of adoption into the family of the slave master in a state which is honorable and only slightly inferior to being of the master's own blood. Perhaps in the ideal it works. But in practice, corruption and cruelty and negligence is common. Now a Chaotic Good member of this society would see slavery as profoundly evil, and would very much disagree with the normative thinking of the land. A lawful good member of society, percieving that some sort of abuse might be occuring in a household would be motivated to deal with it according to the standards of the land. The chaotic good member would be sorely tempted to break the law, steal the slave from its master, and transport it outside of the society where it might find freedom - a course of action that the lawful good person with allegiances to the society would never approve of even if he understood the motivation.
Similarly, a person that kidnaps children from abusive homes or who illegally hacks into systems to expose child pornographers are cases of actions that (assuming a society that is generally good) can best be explained as chaotic good.
These are of course extreme cases. Not every chaotic good action involves breaking some law, but it is certainly true that chaotic good actions are marked by thier lack of concern for what anyone else thinks about the action or how the action will be percieved.
Imagine extreme law as an attempt to bring the universe into stasis, whereas chaos is the motivation to always oppose things that bring the universe into stasis.
Making that statement really makes me think I should finish my essays on the Slaad Lords. The essense of chaos maybe mindless irrational action, but such can only exist in a completely chaotic universe. The minute you introduce some sort of order, chaos itself becomes more structured and more interesting than that. Similarly, the essense of law may be stasis, but the minute things in the universe start changing law itself starts evolving to cope.
I will say that the law/chaos divide much more lends itself to the interpretation that one cannot exist without the other than the good/evil divide does, since the end state of good/evil is distinguishable but the end state of law/chaos both involve sterility.
Anyway, its quite easy to imagine situations where Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil team up against the Lawful side of the table. Slavery is going to be the obvious case in point. Lawfulness doesn't see anything particularly wrong with slavery in and of itself. To Chaotic thinking, slavery is one of the worst possible vices. It's quite possible to imagine chaotic good revolutionaires working along side chaotic evil ones to overthrow some slave based society they mutually abhor even if the society itself isn't notably evil except in the question of slavery.
muffin_of_chaos said:
For mortals, there is no real distinction between the two. Since mortals aren't innately aligned, being made of prime material substance which itself isn't aligned, then the alignment of a character is simply the actions that they take. Granted, there personality might give them a propensity to particular actions, but that doesn't mean for example that all miserly characters are evil or innately evil.
You can't see an action that is both chaotic and good? You can't see an action that is both lawful and evil?
Doing something because you personally think it is right is not genericly good, but chaotic goodness. Generic goodness would see that there is a balance between external authority and personal conviction and that right understanding could come from either path, or perhaps should come from a combination of both.
Well, as Cicero says, rarely does anyone do evil to achieve evil ends. Rather they do evil because they think that there will be some good profit to it. A society can feel that evil actions are justified in order to obtain the security and prosperity of its citizens. That's a lawful evil mindset. For example, any lawful society will tend to reasons that loyalty of the citizens to one another is a virtue (because for example they will act responcibly and generously to one another in times of hardship), and thus needs to be promoted by the law. A lawful evil society will reason that the great mass of individuals are weak and worthless, and to make of them the sort of citizens that make a nation truly great they must be subject to harsh discipline. Hense, any signs of disloyalty must be promptly and harshly dealt with. Likewise, any lawful society will reason that crime is a great scourge on the community. A lawful evil society will reason that the best way to deter crime is to punish criminals punantively so that the punishment greatly exceeds the rewards of the crime.
Neither lawful evil nor chaotic evil are actively promoting evil for evil's sake. Rather both believe that the best way to achieve good is through evil. The chaotic evil person believes that evil is the best way to obtain personal security, freedom, and enjoyment. A lawful evil person believes that evil is the best way to obtain a secure, prosperous, and productive society. Only Nuetral Evil, nihilism if you will, is actively promoting evil for evils sake.
You earlier said you couldn't imagine a chaotic good act. Imagine that there exists a society which is generally lawful good and accepting of slavery. Lawful good members of this society do not believe that slavery is in and of itself evil, but do believe that slaves must be treated respectfully and compassionately by thier masters. Slavery in the ideal of this society consists of a sort of adoption into the family of the slave master in a state which is honorable and only slightly inferior to being of the master's own blood. Perhaps in the ideal it works. But in practice, corruption and cruelty and negligence is common. Now a Chaotic Good member of this society would see slavery as profoundly evil, and would very much disagree with the normative thinking of the land. A lawful good member of society, percieving that some sort of abuse might be occuring in a household would be motivated to deal with it according to the standards of the land. The chaotic good member would be sorely tempted to break the law, steal the slave from its master, and transport it outside of the society where it might find freedom - a course of action that the lawful good person with allegiances to the society would never approve of even if he understood the motivation.
Similarly, a person that kidnaps children from abusive homes or who illegally hacks into systems to expose child pornographers are cases of actions that (assuming a society that is generally good) can best be explained as chaotic good.
These are of course extreme cases. Not every chaotic good action involves breaking some law, but it is certainly true that chaotic good actions are marked by thier lack of concern for what anyone else thinks about the action or how the action will be percieved.
Imagine extreme law as an attempt to bring the universe into stasis, whereas chaos is the motivation to always oppose things that bring the universe into stasis.
Making that statement really makes me think I should finish my essays on the Slaad Lords. The essense of chaos maybe mindless irrational action, but such can only exist in a completely chaotic universe. The minute you introduce some sort of order, chaos itself becomes more structured and more interesting than that. Similarly, the essense of law may be stasis, but the minute things in the universe start changing law itself starts evolving to cope.
I will say that the law/chaos divide much more lends itself to the interpretation that one cannot exist without the other than the good/evil divide does, since the end state of good/evil is distinguishable but the end state of law/chaos both involve sterility.
Anyway, its quite easy to imagine situations where Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil team up against the Lawful side of the table. Slavery is going to be the obvious case in point. Lawfulness doesn't see anything particularly wrong with slavery in and of itself. To Chaotic thinking, slavery is one of the worst possible vices. It's quite possible to imagine chaotic good revolutionaires working along side chaotic evil ones to overthrow some slave based society they mutually abhor even if the society itself isn't notably evil except in the question of slavery.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
To me, chaotic means breaking the rules because you're breaking the rules, not for another reason.
If you just break the rules because that's the easiest way to do good - that's just being good.
Chaotic neutral means going out of your way to break the rules without regard to the moral implications.
Chaotic good means going out of your way to break the rules and do good.
So, that said, I think that any group who can handle having members that fit that mould can probably work out some way to describe the alignment on their own.
Personally I will only mourn the loss of lawful evil - by far the most workable of the evil alignments in a group (of evil OR good characters).
If you just break the rules because that's the easiest way to do good - that's just being good.
Chaotic neutral means going out of your way to break the rules without regard to the moral implications.
Chaotic good means going out of your way to break the rules and do good.
So, that said, I think that any group who can handle having members that fit that mould can probably work out some way to describe the alignment on their own.
Personally I will only mourn the loss of lawful evil - by far the most workable of the evil alignments in a group (of evil OR good characters).
I know they're just examples, but a lot of them hinge on a society that accepts slavery as lawful but blank on the scale between Good and Evil.Celebrim said:
This is D&D, where there was a series of modules, Against the Slavers.
Sure, there are societies where slavery is tolerated and not big-E evil, but their slavery tends to be very different from the sort that the CG kind of character will be going vigilante on.
Accept as a moral precept that slavery, while expedient, is always Evil (or, at best, unaligned.
) -- what changes?Starbuck_II
Explorer
Minsc: Evil throw yourself on my sword; I will not be as gentle.Family said:Minsc: Evil 'round every corner...careful not to step in any.
Minsc: Butt kicking for goodness!
Minsc: Evil, meet my sword! SWORD, MEET EVIL!
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
Chaotic Good was probably the most popular alignment, yet it was also probably the most incoherant.
Good opposes Evil so logically Chaos oppose Law. But what kind of Good character can actively oppose Law as a matter of principle?
So who is CG? Often Robin Hood was given as an example of CG personality. That's BS. Robin Hood is loyal to King Richard. As soon as the tyrant is overthrowned, he's back home enjoying the rightful rule of King Richard. He's not opposed to Order, just to tyranny. Some characterization of RObin are outright Lawful. Richard is the legitimate king after all, and version of Robin Hood where this is the driving force behind his actions can be argued to be Lawful Good. The others would have been Neutral Good.
What kind of genuinely good character could keep fighting against the government if is a reasonably just one? But then What kind of genuinely Chaotic character could stop opposing Law?
And so I doubt you could present me a single character who was both truly Good and truly Chaotic.
---
Sort of the same case can be made for Lawful Evil, but from an other angle : Can you truly be Evil if you are truly Lawful? The interests of one clash often with the other's and something has to give.
Good opposes Evil so logically Chaos oppose Law. But what kind of Good character can actively oppose Law as a matter of principle?
So who is CG? Often Robin Hood was given as an example of CG personality. That's BS. Robin Hood is loyal to King Richard. As soon as the tyrant is overthrowned, he's back home enjoying the rightful rule of King Richard. He's not opposed to Order, just to tyranny. Some characterization of RObin are outright Lawful. Richard is the legitimate king after all, and version of Robin Hood where this is the driving force behind his actions can be argued to be Lawful Good. The others would have been Neutral Good.
What kind of genuinely good character could keep fighting against the government if is a reasonably just one? But then What kind of genuinely Chaotic character could stop opposing Law?
And so I doubt you could present me a single character who was both truly Good and truly Chaotic.
---
Sort of the same case can be made for Lawful Evil, but from an other angle : Can you truly be Evil if you are truly Lawful? The interests of one clash often with the other's and something has to give.
Last edited:
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Celebrim said:
Well, I don't think anyone has been doubting the ability of good players and writers to make decent sausage out of the tripe that was the 9 alignment system, but I'd just like to try a more fit ethical meat as the basis for my DnD in this next edition.
This paragraph demonstrates as well as anything else, save possibly for the ridiculousity that was the Blood War, why despite my respect for the great efforts that good writers went to in order to work with the nine alignments I long for a different moral frame.
Fine you've pinned something under lawfullness and that's slavery. Why? There's nothing more chaotic than the slave trade. It takes terrible laws to justify and administer most forms of it. From the perspective of law there should be little as abhorent as slavery. From the chaotic perspective it's perfectly justifiable. It's the ultimate demonstration of the individual as the source of power. The state doesn't own the slave, I obey no contract with the slave, and I have no cause to negotiate or in any way have my individuality impinged upon by the slave. At the same time I have opportunity, because of the slave, to manifest my individuality in new and glorious ways. The Lawful and Chaotic axis is so ethically annemic that it's entirely up to the writer to determine what falls where.
If I can easily picture chaotic evil and chaotic good characters working together to fight the 'lawful types' its because those alignments are such poor ethical categories in the first place. Good and evil work better but because we put them on the same footing as the other two we cheapen them and the ethical work they could be used to achieve. At heart the reason I can picture it 'working' is because I've lived a life inundated in bad writing and poor ethical thinking.
There's no reason to believe that it will stop with the end of the 9 alignment system, but at least we don't have to start with it.
gribble
Explorer
Celebrim said:
This is a great idea for a campaign! The PCs are escaped slaves, fighting against the LG/LN empire in an altruistic (well, mostly) campaign to free the rest of the slaves. Of course, they have shadowy backers, whose true motive (the downfall of the empire) isn't readily apparent until later in the campaign, making for a great ethical quandry at the climax when they have to choose sides.
If it's possible in 4e, great. If not, it'd still make for an awesome PRPG campaign... thanks for the inspiration!
Mal Malenkirk said:
The French Resistance in WW2. Actually, even Robin Hood counts.
He was loyal to the King, yes, but the King wasn't in power. Robin Hood still flagrantly disobeyed the set laws of the land. That's chaotic. And he did it for good reasons.
Bam.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
