Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1908578" data-attributes="member: 3146">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.</blockquote>

Verification