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

[Desdichado]

I could get interested in alignment again if something interesting were done with it. A game that minimized the conflict between good and evil and played up law vs. chaos, for instance, would be interesting, if nothing else, because it'd be different.

 

[shilsen]

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?

Sure. The problem isn't D&D's theory of law and chaos. The problem is (time to trot out the old cliche) people who use alignment as a straitjacket, like the poster you mentioned.

 

[fusangite]

Like the majority who have responded so far, I run alignment as political ideology not behaviour but some sections of the PHB seem to contradict me, for example:

- "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him."
- "A chaotic neutral character follows his whims... A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable but his behaviour is not totally (italics mine) random."
- "A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable... Thankfully his plans are haphazard and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically chaotic evil people can be made to work together only through force..."

 

[EricNoah]

I could get interested in alignment again if something interesting were done with it.

I agree -- something like...

Everyone is, by default, non-aligned. You have to make a concerted effort to "be" a particular alignment. And when you achieve that alignment, you get some kind of benefit. I dunno, that's just off the top of my head...

 

[swrushing]

With any given individual, any broad stroke "personality" adjective doesn't have to be any sort of straightjacket. certainly their can be anal-retentive, orderly, precision teamworks anarchists, they just don't fit the stereotype.

Additionally, someone can be "chaotic" without following every tenet of "chaotic". One can be "chaotic" and be very "individual over the group" while at the same time being very "honorable" and keeping your word at all costs etc.

That said, handling the "must" part of our question, the "ought" side is another matter.

Stereotypes are what they are because of patterns or preconceptions.

In my games, it is OFTEN true that evil parties do not work as well together as good parties do, and my addversaries are setup and played that way. Why? because the evil guys do not have any sort of presumption of "trust" so to speak. The list of "things i might do to get ahead" includes a lot of unsavory options and the belief that "my partners think that way too" leads to them being less willing to embrace "you got my back" options. At least some of their attention and effort is focused on the allies.

Chaotic vs lawful works pretty much the same, with (depending on which elements of "chaotic" the characters) chaotic usually being less organized and usually being more likely to run the "five individuals running together" mode as opposed to "a five man team" mode because of that individual vs group good thing.

So, i tend to use the nature and organization in combat and planning to help differentiate diverse "alignments" in actual play. if my "chaotic and evil groups" were equally organized and well scripted as my "lawful and good" groups, i would risk having them be rather bland and repetitive.

Its just one more way to differentiate.

As another nod to this, often my chaotic and evil groups use the puyramid power structure: one big leader with several weaker flunkies and several weaker for each. This shows a genuine fear of revolt, so the leader at any stage keeps those underlings weak enough he is at no risk.

Contrast to the good/lawful side where teams of equals is perfectly fine, since they expect loyalty as a matter of course.

Again, different traits for personality/ethics/beliefs produce distinguishable and differentiated solutions/approachs to problems, not just the same "most efficient" way of doing it for everyone.

All this, but stating FTR that I underplay alignment and always tell my players this about alignment... "Player your character, not your alignment. Alignment will be DERIVED from character choices. Alignment should never DRIVE character choices."

 

[fusangite]

With any given individual, any broad stroke "personality" adjective doesn't have to be any sort of straightjacket. certainly their can be anal-retentive, orderly, precision teamworks anarchists, they just don't fit the stereotype.

All this, but stating FTR that I underplay alignment and always tell my players this about alignment... "Player your character, not your alignment. Alignment will be DERIVED from character choices. Alignment should never DRIVE character choices."

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?

 

[fusangite]

Sure. The problem isn't D&D's theory of law and chaos. The problem is (time to trot out the old cliche) people who use alignment as a straitjacket, like the poster you mentioned.

I think it is something more than that. Alignment correlates two things that aren't really related. Correlating political ideology with the political and military tactics employed in pursuit of said ideology is problematic. Whether it is a general guideline or a straitjacket, either way, there appears to be a contradiction inherent in alignment because it argues a high level of correlation between two separate things that actually exhibit a low level of correlation.

In a sense, it's sort of like making Dexterity and Charisma the same attribute on the grounds that charming people are often graceful people.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I agree with Fungasite pretty much entirely. Good and evil are important concepts and are worth the trouble of making coherent.

Law and Chaos, OTOH, seem severly incoherent to me. This is thrown into clarity when one considers what characteristics one attributes to law and chaos:

Law:
Order
Positive Law
Stasis
Inflexibility
Civilization
Rule of Law
Knights
Dwarves
Adherence to tradition
Personal Honor
Truth-telling
Collectivism
Discipline
Cynical Politicians

Chaos:
chaos
Entropy
Flux
Lawbreaking
Barbarism
Barbarians
Case by case decision-making
Rule of people (as opposed to rule of law)
Lying
Adherence to tradition (as opposed to positive law)
Personal Honor (again, as opposed to positive law)
Elves
Disorder
Anarchy
Individualism
Free Spirit
Noble Savages

I'm sure that there are a lot more attributes that other people can think of but all of the ones I've mentioned seem pretty clearly associated with Law and Chaos (with the possible exception of lying). If you break them down, there seem to be several categories:

Cosmological/scientific: Order/chaos, stasis/entropy, flux, or change.
Political: Rule of Law/rule of individual, Rule of Law/Case by case decision-making, Civilization/Barbarism, Positive Law/Tradition, Positive Law/Personal Honor, Collectivism/Individualism, Order/Anarchy
People Groups: Knights/Barbarians, Dwarves/Elves
Personal: Adherence to tradition/Individualism, Discipline/Free Spirit, Personal Honor (knightly)/individualism, Adherence to the rule of law/concern for personal honor (barbarian-style "city men have no honor and therefore lie and cheat one another")

The problem is that many of these oppositions and concepts have nothing whatsoever to do with each other (note, for instance the number of times personal honor appears on both sides of the various oppositions and the various cosmological principles are pretty much all undesirable and, in any event, have nothing to do with one's position on the rule of law or collectivism vs. individualism) and others are actually mutually exclusive (for instance, rule of law is a necessary component of an individualistic society).

Since there's no apparent unifying concept (other than D&D alignment which isn't at all helpful) to tie these disparate ideas together, it doesn't make any sense either as a description of a character (is my honor-obsessed noble savage barbarian who wishes to preserve the traditional ways of his people unchanged lawful or chaotic?) or as an evaluation of a character (what, exactly is being evaluated?)

Good and evil, while far too basic to be a full description of a character are still significant and important as evaluations of a character--something which seems like a major element of the mythic worldview that I want D&D to model.

 

[drnuncheon]

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

Read it as "not totally random" insted and you turn it into a rejection of the awful 2e 'CN = insane, acting completely randomly' description. That's how I always interpreted it, anyway.

I always pictured Chaotic people as being perfectly able to make plans, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will follow them. The orc warlord may have a cunning plan, but when that orc on the front line sees a chance for personal glory and wealth that requires ignoring the plan, he'll take it instead of sticking with the plan - not just because he is chaotic, but because his personal goals are at complete odds with the needs of the plan. The only way to get him to fall into line is to threaten an even more important personal goal (like survival).

Traditional elves, on the other hand, I always pictured as "enlightened chaotic" - having or aspiring to a sort of anarchic utopia. They would be perfectly capable of making a battle plan and following it. They've got the intelligence and wisdom to see when those things are necessary, and their personal goals are more likely to be aligned with the overall goals of the plan ("get these *&@^ing orcs out of our forest") in any case.

An orc army would be a thundering horde, sweeping over all in its path. An elven army would more than likely be made of guerilla fighters, each operating individually, but all aimed towards the larger goal. Both are chaotic, but representing very different expressions.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think the problem in your posts, Fusangite, is twofold:

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

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

Your Anarchists aren't CHAOTIC Neutral. I'm not even sure they're Chaotic Neutral. They're probably True Neutral with Chaotic sympathies.

A Chaotic Neutral person could run for President of a republic just as well as a Lawful Neutral person could. The manner in which they approached their Presidencies would likely be very different, however - with the Chaotic person focusing, as Chaos tends, towards the individuals (appeal to Senator Y to get Law Z passed, present the emotional impact of Q), whereas the Lawful person would focus on groups (appease Party ABC to achieve F).

EDIT: Also, Dr. Nuncheon is wise.