Is Chaotic/Lawful Alignment Axis really necessary?
- Thread starter Melkor Lord Of ALL!
- Start date
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I'd say that you can toss it and it's likely that the only reason anyone will miss it is nostalgia (it's D&D so Paladins have to be lawful good) and when someone tries to make a multiclass paladin/Holy Liberator (rather than ex-paladin/Holy Liberator)).
The Rokugan system Xeriar mentioned sounds like it would work well too--the only thing is that it's not Law/Chaos, it's honor/dishonor. Honor and dishonor, unlike traditional D&D Law and Chaos are actually clearly defined and internally coherent concepts.
The Rokugan system Xeriar mentioned sounds like it would work well too--the only thing is that it's not Law/Chaos, it's honor/dishonor. Honor and dishonor, unlike traditional D&D Law and Chaos are actually clearly defined and internally coherent concepts.
MerakSpielman
First Post
Or Chaos-theory mathematicians?d4 said:then where do those pesky Discordians fit in?
seriously though...
I think just a Good-Neutral-Evil system is too vague. Same with the OD&D Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic system. Combining the two makes a much more complex system that encompasses a greater number of worldviews.
But still, a lot of character concepts are very difficult to fit into a specific alignment, so we just pick one that's kind of close and move on with our lives.
In the rules as written, alignment is a total absolute. It is determinable via spells and abilities. Different weapons do different damage based on your alignment. It is a tried and true FACT that all creatures in the multiverse can be pidgeonholed into one of nine categories.
I don't think we can do away with any particular axis on the alignment grid - it would trivialize the shades of gray we all know exist. We could add MORE axes, to make the system more realistic, but that would get pretty cumbersome pretty fast. We could do away with alignment entirely, but then entire chunks of the game go away.
I dunno. I'm done rambling now.
MerakSpielman
First Post
This might be your point, but that is one possible interpretation of the difference between Law and Chaos... Total Control (fascism) is the end-result of unrestrained Law, and Total Freedom (anarchy) is the end-result of unrestrained Chaos.Impeesa said:
Trickstergod
First Post
As it is, I generally do not believe that Law and Chaos are not simply troublesome little remnants from ye olden days of D&D.
Many will agree that alignments are not always so "realistic." At times, yeah, I'll grant you that.
However, I believe a Good versus Evil scale to be more unrealistic than the four tier scale of Good-Evil, Chaos-Law. As it is, I generally find the ethical (Chaos-Neutrality-Lawfulness) to help better represent those actions which do not coincide with the moral (Good-Neutral-Evil) aspect of alignment, and vice versa. Very few individuals could really fall under the heading of just Good, or just Evil. But, by granting them another personality and motive descriptor, it helps loosen up (in my opinion; one could say it's more restrictive, but, I'll go into why I think the way I do) the alignment they wear. A Good character may do something morally questionable; however, if the individual is Lawful Good, and the act is ostensibly Lawful if not Good, then the act becomes a little more acceptable. Note that this isn't quite the case with paladins, where both parts of their alignment only serve as a greater restriction (and not necessarily a bad one, mind you).
As I see it, the two aspects of alignment better describe, as much as one can apply alignment to a world that isn't black and white, the personality and the way people tend to act. At least, better than anything so ambiguous as Good and Evil would. That's more simplistic than I care to bother with. At that point I'd say you'd be better off just discarding the alignment system. In my Scarred Lands game, the battle of Chaos versus Law has almost become the most prominent of alignment conflicts. Yet, by that same token, the one between Good and Evil has also cropped up to a degree (possibly a bit more on an internal level for at least one character, but there you have it).
Chaos and Law may not play an important part in some peoples games, but it serves a purpose in a good chunk of them.
Many will agree that alignments are not always so "realistic." At times, yeah, I'll grant you that.
However, I believe a Good versus Evil scale to be more unrealistic than the four tier scale of Good-Evil, Chaos-Law. As it is, I generally find the ethical (Chaos-Neutrality-Lawfulness) to help better represent those actions which do not coincide with the moral (Good-Neutral-Evil) aspect of alignment, and vice versa. Very few individuals could really fall under the heading of just Good, or just Evil. But, by granting them another personality and motive descriptor, it helps loosen up (in my opinion; one could say it's more restrictive, but, I'll go into why I think the way I do) the alignment they wear. A Good character may do something morally questionable; however, if the individual is Lawful Good, and the act is ostensibly Lawful if not Good, then the act becomes a little more acceptable. Note that this isn't quite the case with paladins, where both parts of their alignment only serve as a greater restriction (and not necessarily a bad one, mind you).
As I see it, the two aspects of alignment better describe, as much as one can apply alignment to a world that isn't black and white, the personality and the way people tend to act. At least, better than anything so ambiguous as Good and Evil would. That's more simplistic than I care to bother with. At that point I'd say you'd be better off just discarding the alignment system. In my Scarred Lands game, the battle of Chaos versus Law has almost become the most prominent of alignment conflicts. Yet, by that same token, the one between Good and Evil has also cropped up to a degree (possibly a bit more on an internal level for at least one character, but there you have it).
Chaos and Law may not play an important part in some peoples games, but it serves a purpose in a good chunk of them.
I Concur
I have often found my experience the same as TricksterGod's. A lot depends on what the DM and the players enjoy; a multi-faceted alignment view lends a good deal to game if the DM and players work with it.
Since this kind of topic pops up all the time, I am preparing a long discussion of alignment in my games here .
I have often found my experience the same as TricksterGod's. A lot depends on what the DM and the players enjoy; a multi-faceted alignment view lends a good deal to game if the DM and players work with it.
Since this kind of topic pops up all the time, I am preparing a long discussion of alignment in my games here .
I am of the view that alignment is not sufficiently sophisticated or accurate to actually be descriptive of human behaviour; so, if we are to use it in our games, it must have some other function. I think either an overarching good vs. evil theme or a law vs. chaos theme would be preferable to the current two axis theme our system runs on.
Runequest dealt with a far more nuanced, relativistic specific theory of human behaviour and loyalties but managed to do with a single axis alignment system (law vs. chaos). This post has inspired me to modify my future D&D games to run off a single axis alignment system, perhaps along the lines of old basic D&D's simple law vs. chaos system.
The model I tend to use for alignment is the Cold War: everyone was either Communist, Capitalist or Non-Aligned. I think a good alignment system (supposing we want to keep one for spell mechanics) should be that simple. Let's leave the description of people's behaviour to a tool less blunt than alignment.
Runequest dealt with a far more nuanced, relativistic specific theory of human behaviour and loyalties but managed to do with a single axis alignment system (law vs. chaos). This post has inspired me to modify my future D&D games to run off a single axis alignment system, perhaps along the lines of old basic D&D's simple law vs. chaos system.
The model I tend to use for alignment is the Cold War: everyone was either Communist, Capitalist or Non-Aligned. I think a good alignment system (supposing we want to keep one for spell mechanics) should be that simple. Let's leave the description of people's behaviour to a tool less blunt than alignment.
Similar Threads
