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

[ptolemy18]

I agree -- people often don't understand what alignment is all about. Alignment isn't a behavior -- it's a goal.

Huh? I guess maybe if you're playing in a campaign in some fantasy world where there's no such thing hypocrisy, and where all evil people who are aware that they're "evil"...

(Hmm... actually, there are probably more D&D campaigns like that than I'd care to think about... gag me with a fork... :/ )

Jason

 

[billd91]

Not really. Because you don't seem to understand my point.

But I'm persistent so I'll give you some new questions to answer:
(a) Which species would have a bill of individual rights?
(b) Which species would have an independent judiciary?
(c) Which species would be more likely to have a democratic government?
(d) Which species would be more likely to have a monarchy?
(e) If elves were under attack and the best way to defend themselves against tyranny was to form a single cohesive centralized fighting force, would they?

Having anarchist or libertarian goals and pursuing them rationally and efficiently is not something the current alignment system facilitates.

Actually, the current alignment system is not in the way of such things at all and Patryn of Elvenshae is definitely hooked in to some good ideas here. It's quite possible that lawful and chaotic societies or individuals will come to the same decisions when it comes to any of these questions, in the main. But the motivations behind them will be different and some of the particulars (rules of behavior, checks and balances, etc) will be different.
If those elves want to best preserve their individual dignities, then sure they'll form a single, cohesive, fighting force. But it's rules of advancement and discipline will be different from dwarves doing the same thing. A chaotic group may have units electing officers rather than have them come from a dedicated officer class, or they may be more of a meritocracy while dwarves might rely more on lineage or tenure in the force.
When it comes to broader political questions, alignment is no more a straight-jacket on behavior in that arena than it is for individual behavior. Figure that chaotic societies will have more flexible social structures than lawful ones, more focus on smaller collective units like clans and tribes instead of city-states, more interlocking and mutual obligations (social contracts, if you will) between roles in society than expectations of right behavior and deference because of mere tradition and "that's the way it is" justifications. And yet, chaotic societies might still have some trappings of lawful-oriented societies while lawful societies might have some chaotic trappings.
As to whether the general populace is true neutral or not, I think that depends. In societies based on examples like Rome and Hellenistic Greece or even feudal Japan and China, I'd say lawful neutral. In societies based on the Celts and Germanic tribes, then we tilt toward more chaotic neutral societies (though perhaps not all the way). I would agree that the typical serf village would tend toward true neutral with slightly lawful tendencies.

 

[drnuncheon]

Dr. Nuncheon, I'm not arguing that alignment be abolished; I'm simply stating that the current system of categorization does not serve us either so we should decide whether the law-chaos axis represents conduct or political ideology. I don't even care which one.

That's exactly the point, though - it's really not supposed to represent either, if you look at where it came from - the Moorcock multiverse. It, like 'good/evil', is supposed to represent monolithic universal opposing forces.

Once you get down into the human scale, everything gets muddy - witness any paladin discussion for that, or the moral relativism vs moral absolutism defintions of good and evil, for the same sort of things centered on the other axis.

Because of that mud, you shouldn't define law/chaos at the human level (for D&D) any more than you should define good/evil.

J

 

[shilsen]

Yes I feel much better knowing that this attribute isn't unfair because its meaning and function are variable and shift during play.

Glad to help

Kidding aside, I wouldn't say its meaning and function shift during play. It just happens to be made up of an amalgam of factors. Since I make sure that my players understand that fact and trust my adjudication of alignment-based issues, I've never had a problem with it in my games when DMing.

How did the renaissance exam go?

I threw out the roleplaying, kicked it in the junk and took its stuff. It was quite good fun, actually, and I'm waiting to find out if my examiners caught the references to Buffy and Highlander that I threw in there (yes, I amuse myself in strange ways).

 

[Fenes]

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 use the same system. Lawful and chaotic I use as "principled" and "flexible", meaning a lawful individual will have a stricter code of behaviour and be less flexible with it than a chaotic one.

 

[fusangite]

Double Post

Double Post

 

[fusangite]

I'm not sure if this was supposed to be a rebuttal on your part, but, if it is, I will say that even in light of all of those reasons, I still find him one of the better examples of chaotic good that can be found.

I agree 100%. Doesn't this suggest to you that Chaotic Good is not a very useful category? I'm not telling you that you have chosen a bad example to represent Chaotic Good -- you chose a great example. I am saying that Chaotic Good when applied to politics is such an incoherent ambivalent idea that it doesn't meaningfully function.

Part of the reason I brought him up was because, at times, a certain eloquence fails me. Suffice to say that, as far as I'm concerned, Thomas Paine's efforts for honor, trustworthiness, reliability, speaking out against injustice and believing in order represent a particularly chaotic good.

Right. So when these attributes are associated with law and not chaos, this should indicate to you that there is something wrong with the way our game defines alignment.

an essentially chaotic good individual and shows quite aptly that such an individual can believe in order, addressing injustice, and so on.

Right. Because order and codification are necessary to protect liberty in the real world. But in D&D order and codification are associated with law and opposed by chaos; and liberty is associated with chaos and opposed by law. Thus, D&D's alignment mechanic can't actually express the political ideology of most of the people playing the game. That's a problem.

Law, to a degree, is about empowering and trusting to authority.

Chaos, conversely, is distrusting of authority and believes in restricting or eliminating its power

And the only way to do this is to create a constitutional legal framework that is applied equally to everyone. In other words, we have to empower authority to protect our liberty.

My entire point in this thread has been to show that alignment cannot be both conduct and ideology because it is necessary to behave in a lawful way in order to achieve chaotic goals.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The exemplar for LG i would choose is the paladin. A character for whom the ENDS and the means must satisfy his precepts. dishonorable acts get him in dutch and even a single evil act gets him fired.

Again, no single paladin has to embody every aspect of law and every aspect of good.

This is somewhat problematic since paladins are a class rather than an individual and therefore cannot present a whole individual which is where I'm maintaining that the law/chaos axis breaks down. But if it's all you can come up with it'll have to do.

But you're wrong about one thing. A dishonorable act does not get a paladin in jeophardy. A chaotic act does. There's supposedly a lot more to law/chaos than just honor/dishonor and trying to narrow the focus down to honor now just concedes the point that the aggregate is untenable. So, what exactly would constitute a chaotic act? Breaking a positive law? Breaking a natural law would generally fall under good/evil since that is the context that natural law theory addresses. Not organizing his sock drawer? Supporting individual rights above the good of the group? Deciding marriage for himself rather than following the traditions of his society for arranged marriages or at least asking his parents for counsel and his to-be fiance's parents for permission first? (Although maybe you can dodge the question by requiring that all paladins remain chaste and celibate). How about simply pressing for social change? By the Moorcockian of Chaos, that would be chaotic. (IMO it's also poppycockian definition, but people here are absolutely right when they point out that it's one of the original inspirations for the law/chaos axis).

 

[fusangite]

(a) Which species would have a bill of individual rights?

Both, of course. Because, again, it's the wrong question. A Chaotic individual might desire such a thing because it limits what other people can enforce on his "free will."

Which species would have an independent judiciary?

Both, again. A Chaotic individual might believe in a *truly* independent judiciary (perhaps even so far as a single and inviolate judge, jury, and executioner) because an individual can be reasoned with, can be reached on emotion, and can empathize more effectively with the accused / accusees. Thus, the ability for any given "court" to step outside the bounds of constraints laid down by others, far away and removed from the situation, is desirable.

Again, my problem with your response is that you seem to be performing some kind of exegesis on the rules instead of a literal reading. Chaos includes:
- "he has little use for laws and regulations"
- "he follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society"
- "acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him"
- "Chaos implies... flexibility"

In discussing law, as distinct form chaos, the PHB observes:
- "obedience to authority and reliability"

What you are saying is that "obedience to authority and reliability" should be equally applied to both lawful and chaotic groups in this case. You are also arguing that, in this case it is not true that chaotic individuals have "little use for laws and regulations," etc. You should be a theologian -- you have a great skill in interpreting a text so as to obscure those parts where it literally contradicts itself.

In order to make this interpretation fly, you have argued

First, you are making the most common error when discussing alignment. You look at an effect, and try to determine whether or not that effect is Evil, or Chaotic, or whatever.

That's the wrong question.

The question, instead, is "Why would a Chaotic individual desire or support such an idea?," as distinct from "Why would a Lawful individual desire or support such an idea?"

If alignment does not indicate how people will act or what they will believe in, what exactly is it for? If lawful and chaotic people act the same and support the same ideas and practices, how is alignment an operative thing? If it only functions to provide different interior structures of justification, who does it meaningfully function in-game?

 

[RFisher]

I tend to not take alignment too seriously. In any case, despite what any rulebook may say about the matter, I tend to view alignments as something between allegiances & ideology. I think the original intent was that they were merely allegiences, much like you find in wargames.