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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Granted. I should rephrase my earlier post as, "alignment *must* have something to do with politics."

Certainly, politics is one area of "human expression" in which alignment can be expressed. But then, so are sculpture, painting, music, literature, friendship, psychology, battle tactics, etc.

If you wish to argue that all Lawful Good individuals must share the same political outlook, why do you not similarly argue that they must share the same approach to music?

How do you approach my questions if we limit our discussions to these races?

Elves are Chaotic; they believe in the power of the individual. It suffuses their culture: their art, their poetry, their literature, their script.

Dwarves are Lawful; they beleive in the power of the group. It suffuses their culture: their art, their poetry, their literature, their script.

An elven warband fights as a collection of individuals, each with the power and ability to make decisions - and the expectation that they will do so. A dwarven warband fights as a cohesive unit, with clearly delineated lines of command.

Dwarves fight with massed shield walls. Elves fight with 300 dispersed harrassers and skirmishers.

Elves deal in families - small units connected through emotional ties. Dwarves deal in clans - large units connected through marriage ties, ancestral lineage.

Elves are most at home in the woods, moulding their homes to fit a tree as much as the tree moulds their homes. Dwarves are most at home in mountain fastnesses, where every room, once completed, is fixed in space.

Should I go on?

 

[Trickstergod]

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?

Dwarves: Organized, hierarchal. Large dwarven tribes with a relative duty to their superiors. Centralized.
Elves: Organized, cell-based. Small elvish bands with relative autonomy. Decentralized (slightly a matter of opinion here; elven kings seem fairly common, but it seems to be a slightly more feudal, weak monarchy instead of a autocratic, strong monarchy)

Dwarves: Society-oriented; individuals have an obligation to society.
Elves: Individual-oriented; society has an obligation to individuals.

Dwarves: Stoic, "unemotional"
Elves: Passionate, "impulsive"

Dwarves: Upfront fight, to the death
Elves: Ambush, hit and run

Dwarves: Capable of making plans, long and short term.
Elves: Capable of making plans, long and short term.

Dwarves: Honorable
Elves: Honorable

Now, I'm more inclined to see the chaos-law scale as essentially relating to society and politics. Sure, at least one instance of emotion comes into play here, but for the most part, what separates elves from dwarves seems to be how their societies work, how they perceive society and their place in it.

I think my list here may be a bit simplistic, but I'd like to think it helps illustrate the chaos-law scale, even if it's not in the most eloquent way.

Oh and, as an aside, two examples spring to mind of who I find lawful good and chaotic good. On the one hand we have Sir Thomas More as lawful good - who, because of his duty to King Henry VIII, refused to speak out against him or anything he did but, conversely, due to his feelings on the immorality of Henry's divorce and splitting from the Catholic Church, refused to acknowledge that Henry's divorce was in any way legal or the split from the Church. This, despite the fact that he knew it meant his death.

Then, on the other hand, there's Thomas Paine, a decent example of chaotic good. A career rebel, he pamphleteered and more for the Americans and French alike in support of their revolutions (and more places beside, I do believe), and, such as with the French, was unwilling to lend support to the new government when the revolutionaries took a turn most bloody. He seemed deeply unsatisfied with the political situation in most places and constantly criticized them in the hopes of creating something better. Like More, he was willing to stand his ground even under threat of death; he escaped Robespierre and the guillotine supposedly more by chance than anything else.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The problem with this approach is that you end up with a lot of the exemplars of the various alignments actually being Neutral. And if the supposedly paradigmatic cases of the alignments are really neutral because they mix qualities that, in other examples are strongly associated with the other side of the spectrum, that is a good indication that there isn't really any kind of spectrum or continuum and that the category is misconceived to begin with.

For instance:
Barbarians in their noble savage incarnation are often seen as a paradigmatic case for chaotic good or chaotic neutral. They live independently of society. They eschew the values and roles of urban magical-medieval society. When they move to such a society, they often clash with the accepted norms there and follow their own code regardless of the beliefs of the surrounding people. But, they also tend to have a communitarian or collectivist view of people. They tend to strictly follow the traditions of their peopler. Their personal code that sets them at odds with the society at large is often as rigid as any knight's code of honor. In other words, looking at them from a different angle, they could be a paradigmatic case for lawful good or lawful neutral. Now, you can say, "Well, then they must be neutral" but if neutrality contains both paradigmatic cases for law and for chaos, it indicates that maybe law and chaos combine concepts inappropriately.

Another example:
Superman is often taken as a paradigmatic case of Lawful Good. He follows a strict personal code. He acts for the greater good of human society. He believes very strongly in responsibility. He is an enthusiastic member of his society (truth, justice, and the American way, etc--he's an American). On the other hand, his vigilanteism is inherently individualistic. The ideals he defends (remember the American way?) are intensely atomistic and individualistic. (In the various incarnations of the story, he generally conducts a typically individualistic romance with Lois Lane--they make the decisions in their relationship and, while they may tell their parents, they certainly don't go in for any of the asking Dad's permission to date or marry his daughter things). He may act in relatively traditional manners, but there is no indication that tradition is a conscious reason for his action. In other words, while Superman is a paradigmatic example of the Lawful Good Hero, his personal life is a paradigmatic case of chaotic atomistic individualism.

We can't solve the paradox by making both the Noble Savage and Superman neutral. Making paradigmatic cases of law or chaos neutral effectively removes the entire axis from usefulness. If Superman isn't lawful, it's difficult to see how the paladins portrayed in the various D&D cosmologies are. If the noble savage isn't chaotic, it's difficult to see how elves are chaotic. Indeed, while one might mention Judge Dredd as a candidate for a non-mixed paradigmatic case of lawfulness, it is only believable to the degree that readers of the comic (at least people like me who've only read one Judge Dredd comic or so) only witness Judge Dredd in his role as a Judge--where he is wearing the mask of command so to speak. (A rather useful concept that stipulates that a part of leadership or really most authority depends upon merging one's identity with that of the role one is playing. A policeman acts differently qua policeman than he does qua father. Judge Dredd, presumably acts differently qua Judge than he would in his role as an individual if one ever saw him outside of his role as a Judge). If Law and Chaos are placed outside of the frame of human possibility then they are only relevant to the extent that you choose them to describe psychologically alien outsiders--which is certainly not the role that D&D envisions for Law and Chaos.

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.

 

[Voadam]

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...

Like in Dragonlords of Melnibone? There you can become Chaotic, Lawful, or balanced, and gain benefits when you hit that status. I remember that balanced gave you something like max hit points on all levels when you are balanced.

It seemed like too much bookkeeping to track alignment actions for my tastes though.

 

[shilsen]

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.

I think your analogy would work better if you compared alignment to Charisma. Charisma can measure physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, force of personality, and a few other things, and one's Cha score respresents a combination of all of the above. Alignment, similarly, represents a character's goals, the methods the character uses to achieve those goals, and in effect, a combination of the two. Problems arise when DMs and/or players focus on a specific aspect at the exclusion of others. Or posters on a messageboard, too

 

[Voadam]

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.

Charisma includes physical beauty and persuasive personality. A high charisma character could be ugly and persuasive or beautiful and dull and similarly for a low charisma character.

Broad categories with a lot of descriptive wiggle room.

 

[shilsen]

Charisma includes physical beauty and persuasive personality. A high charisma character could be ugly and persuasive or beautiful and dull and similarly for a low charisma character.

Broad categories with a lot of descriptive wiggle room.

Hah! Eat my dust, Voadam ! *see previous post*

 

[Voadam]

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

Beat me to it.

 

[Insight]

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...

D20 Modern has Allegiances, which are sort of like what you are talking about. Unfortunately, because they don't have any hard and fast rules associated with them, Allegiances are normally unused in D20 Modern games. Allegiances don't really do anything per se, aside from potential DM use in the campaign.

If you were to take these Allegiances and perhaps add a few prereqs and some associated Feats, etc., I think people could get behind such a notion.

 

[Aaron2]

Their noble savage incarnation are often seen as a paradigmatic case for chaotic good or chaotic neutral. They live independently of society. They eschew the values and roles of urban magical-medieval society. When they move to such a society, they often clash with the accepted norms there and follow their own code regardless of the beliefs of the surrounding people. But, they also tend to have a communitarian or collectivist view of people. They tend to strictly follow the traditions of their peopler. Their personal code that sets them at odds with the society at large is often as rigid as any knight's code of honor.

Since when do barbarians have a strict and rigid code of conduct or a collectivist view? I always thought they were "I better take care of myself because nobody else, not even Crom, will."


Aaron