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

[fusangite]

Both are chaotic, but representing very different expressions.

So why then would we use the same variable to contain them. Dexterity, Strength and Constitution are all components of a concept called "physical fitness" but this doesn't mean that it would be wise or helpful to aggregate the three scores into a single attribute. And in my view, Constitution and Dexterity exhibit stronger correlation than political goals and political tactics do. Surely if the same value in a category can yield two essentially opposite meanings, it suggests that the category itself may be broken.

 

[Desdichado]

- "A chaotic neutral character follows his whims... A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable but his behaviour is not totally (italics mine) random."

Well, that's the problem. You italicized the wrong word.

EDIT: As drnuncheon already said. D'oh!

 

[barsoomcore]

I agree with fusangite's basic problem -- that political ideology doesn't map very consistently to individual behaviour. Rugged survivalists (chaotic) are, in my experience, incredibly organized and determined people who carry out long-range plans with dedication and fervour (lawful). Profoundly committed martial artists (lawful) are often equally committed individualists (chaotic). People who have trouble sticking to plans and seeing beyond their own short-term interest (chaotic) often flourish in environments where their activities are structured and organized as part of a larger effort (lawful).

But more deeply, I don't find alignment very interesting. The notion that bad guys do bad things because they're EVIL bores me. I much prefer bad guys doing bad things because they're GOOD. Currently in my campaign I have at least four parties all trying to destroy the world. Because they're trying to save it, but that won't serve to comfort all those who are about to die in assorted horrible ways.

 

[fusangite]

1) that you think alignment has something to do with political motivation;

- "Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behaviour creates a society in which people can depend on eachother and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
- "Those who promote chaotic behaviour say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
- "A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard or she may believe in order for all and favour a strong, organized government."
- "Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themsleves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run."
- "Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to food. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself."

These quotations, all taken from pages 104-105 of the Player's Handbook look to me like political views arising out of alignment.

2) you keep forgetting the vast majority of people are True Neutral.

Let's dispense with this assertion by immediately conceding that this is true of most humans. Now, when I open up my Monster Manual, I read the following:

Dwarves: Usually Lawful Good
Elves: Usually Chaotic Good

Let's limit our discussion then just to elves and dwarves then . According to the Monster Manual, over 50% of the members of these races have this alignment. How do you approach my questions if we limit our discussions to these races?

 

[barsoomcore]

I think that Modern's "Allegiances" system is actually better for this. A character might have an Allegiance to chaos but be a very determined, organized person. There's a difference between somebody who wants to bring down organized government and somebody who just can't get their stuff together.

Allegiances describe what a character's GOALS are, as opposed to what sort of person they are. Much easier to understand.

 

[Belen]

Alignment is a guideline only. A character chooses an alignment that helps guide the character when the player may have trouble figuring out what to do.

In my games, I only give alignments to NPCs if I think that there alignment will play a large part in their character. Most NPCs have no alignment, nor is it really needed.

 

[barsoomcore]

Alignment is a guideline only.

Nobody's disputing that. The question is WHAT does it guide? Does it indicate your character's political beliefs and goals, or does it describe your character's personality? People can share the former without sharing the latter and vice versa, so having one descriptor for both is problematic.

 

[swrushing]

Yes -- but if a GM is deriving alignment for these precision teamwork anarchists what should be more important, the question I am asking is should they derive "chaotic neutral" because this reflects the group's goals or "lawful neutral" because this reflects the group's tactics?

Barring a GM decision on whether or not this "teamwork" thing is an abberation, i would rule that a character who is in fact "lawful" in "how i get things done" but devoted to a "chaotic" agenda, is actually a neitral character, one divided between the two examples.

this of course, assume a relative level of balance and sincerity for both. if they are only being organized due to threat of superior, thats not a case for neutrality, just an "oppressed chaotic." Similarly, if the organization is "real and by choice" but the adherence to a "chaotic agenda" is false, like say doing it to impress a girl he wants to get it on with, then thats just an opportunist lawful.

On a similar note, if someone was pursuing a lawful agenda using chaotic methods, that would be a push for deriving a neutral assignment.

MEANS and ENDS both figure into the equation... IMO.

 

[swrushing]

The notion that bad guys do bad things because they're EVIL bores me.

I prefer bad guys who are evil because they do bad things. Action drives designator, IMO.

 

[swrushing]

Nobody's disputing that. The question is WHAT does it guide? Does it indicate your character's political beliefs and goals, or does it describe your character's personality? People can share the former without sharing the latter and vice versa, so having one descriptor for both is problematic.

Actually, this I don't get.

Alignment is BOTH personal actions and political belief. Both elemtns are mentioned at various times.

Someone can be lawful without having every trait listed for lawful. Same for chaos. So one chaotic person might not believe or care all that much for politics at all, and be very chaotic in his personal habits... while another might not be chaotic in their personal habits but be very politically motivated.

its not either/or at all.


at least IMO. Some people might think its either/or all or nothing.