[i]This[/i] is my problem with alignment

fusangite

First Post
In the thread discussing the relationship between combat tactics and mental attributes, one poster observed that the efficacy of a group of opponents in combat is, to an extent, conditioned by their alignment.

A chaotic alignment, the argument goes, circumscribes as NPC's capacity to act rationally and efficiently in pursuit of his goals. In balance-obsessed D&D 3.5, this strikes me as a real problem. If chaotic NPCs are inherently less capable of making a plan and working in a cohesive efficient manner towards its completion, shouldn't being chaotic function mechanically as a disability rather than as simply descriptive?

If alignment is essentially a character's political views, shouldn't chaotic characters be just as capable as lawful characters of working together over an extended period to achieve a more chaotic world? If a chaotic evil group of NPCs wanted to exterminate all viable heirs to the throne so that an extended civil war could take place, isn't it unfair to force them to betray eachother before their plan can be brought to fruition?

On the other hand, if chaos is a pathology and not a political ideology, why should people who have trouble cooperating and lack impulse control not be allowed to believe in strict laws, stable monarchies and inflexible social standards?

I don't see, in real life, any particular connection between people's behaviour and psychology and their political goals. Some of the most disciplined political actors I have met have applied that discipline and structure to the promotion of anarchist or libertarian politics. And vice-versa.

More than the good-evil axis, D&D's theory of law and chaos seems severely incoherent to me. Does anyone want to take a stab at defending this nonsense or is there some general agreement here?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I agree -- people often don't understand what alignment is all about. Alignment isn't a behavior -- it's a goal. It's what you want the world to be like. And it takes a great deal of planning to sow a great deal of chaos. There are many examples of highly logical minds put to chaotic ends (think about computer virus creators).
 

The flaw is in the interpretation of chaotic as random, and unable to correlate the contents of his mind to act efficiently. At no point in 3+e does any description of chaotic have anything like this, although granted, some extremely early editions of the game did.

The other flaw is really caring about alignment very much one way or another. In my games, if we even use it at all, it's a bare footnote, not a driving force in the way the character is roleplayed.
 

fusangite said:
In the thread discussing the relationship between combat tactics and mental attributes, one poster observed that the efficacy of a group of opponents in combat is, to an extent, conditioned by their alignment.

A chaotic alignment, the argument goes, circumscribes as NPC's capacity to act rationally and efficiently in pursuit of his goals. In balance-obsessed D&D 3.5, this strikes me as a real problem. If chaotic NPCs are inherently less capable of making a plan and working in a cohesive efficient manner towards its completion, shouldn't being chaotic function mechanically as a disability rather than as simply descriptive?

I'm not sure where the assertion would come from, because I don't see that implied in the Alignment description. I certainly don't see it applied in the description of Chaotic Evil monsters. Orcs form tribes and work together to invade human lands. Demons work with Drow to accomplish major feats of vile reknown.

However, to say they'd NEVER betray one another is to slight who they are. A Chaotic Evil character always puts needs of the self over needs of the many. Needs of the many may coincide with needs of the self, but when they no longer overlap, it's time for a parting of ways.

It really comes back to alignment being proscriptive, again. Do you have a race of demons who are loyal to one another through thick and thin? Then they aren't Chaotic Evil, are they? It's not, "they must backstab one another because they are CE", it's "what is the best descriptor for the way they are acting?" If it's another type of evil, or even another type of chaos, then it's better to put a more apt descriptor on it.
 

Personally I have always viewed alignment as a sort of philosophy.

Chaotic characters tend to be more freespirited with whatever they tend to do. Chaotic good characters do not like evil, but unlike the lawful Good character they are willing to look the other way if they see someone do something wrong within the group.

Chaotic Neutral Characters do not view the world as good or evil, they believe in the gray area, they believe that on certain occaisions perhaps doing something that would be normally considered evil is the only way to get things done, however they don't dedicate themselves to always doing something evil or always doing something good. Lawful Neutral characters also believe in a gray area their personal code comes before anything else. If something conflicts with it, they will maintain their code regardless of what it is.

Chaotic Evil characters are only out to get what they want, they won't let anyone stand in their way, good or evil. They work in teams if it suits their wants. However they would most likely accept a deal and then once they get an item or kill a person. They will typically blackmail them with evidence of the hit, or keep the item and demand more money. Lawful Evil characters are the type of corrupt politicians they use the law to get what they want. In my opinion they are more concerned with gaining power to rule, as opposed to chaotic who want power to serve their own wants.

All in all, I view the difference between Chaos and Law to be dealing with a philosophy of law versus an approach towards personal means.

this is just my take.
 


The problem with alignments, generally, is people are far too relativistic these days.

But that's neither here nor there.

Would a Chaotic individual be forced to betray his compatriots out of some distaste for the "order" brought about through his personal relationships?

No, that's patently ridiculous.

The Chaotic individual might have and keep or betray those relationships based on emotion however.

In mortal terms, Law is often the involvement of logic; Chaos is the usually involvement of emotion.

Each and every Prime is some mixture of the two. Even the most stalwart Paladin has, in his heart, aspects of Evil and Chaos. Likewise, the most depraved random killer carries with him the influence of Law and Good.
 

I simply don't use alignment in my game. One of my biggest problems is the immense importance of the good-evil axis and the minor influence of the law-chaos axis. After all, a paladin is often found in groups with CG characters, but would never travel with a (known) LE character.

I use a really simplified system. Pretty much everyone is Neutral, with some people who are Really Really Bad and some are Really Really Good.
 

I think another modern concept that doesn't belong in fantasy alignments is the idea that there must be good and evil in the world. In a fantasy setting, I think the proponents of good and right should believe that evil can be utterly vanquished, never to return, or at least that there does not have to be any sort of "balance" between good and evil.
 

Remove ads

Top