Law and Chaos gone? Good Riddance!

[bonethug0108]

No, it doesn't.

You need to read the chapter again because it does. Read the edit in my post.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You need to read the chapter again because it does. Read the edit in my post.

Where is that? Here?

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority... Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.

...because it doesn't say "Lawful characters must obey the laws of the nation they are in" anywhere there.

And, again, it wouldn't matter much if it did. It obviously encompasses more than just any one idea, and because alignment is a guideline, not a straightjacket, it's okay for a character to violate one idea on the condition that they uphold the greater abundance of the alignment, and don't violate that idea on a regular, re-occurring basis.

You're trying to re-define the term. Stop it. This is the kind of thing that causes alignment debates. This is the kind of thing that 4e may be trying to stop by ditching the law/chaos axis. Because players and DMs assume it means something other than what it actually does, leading to (ta da!) arguments over it.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

A simpleminded understanding of the idea of balance as a balance of good vs. evil as opposed to a more thoughtful approach such as the balance such as that of order vs. entropy (not as moral values but as relative states) has led to some ridiculousness as well.

If I remember correctly Mordenkainen is considered radically neutral where he would actually side with the forces of darkness if ever the forces of good gained too much ground.

Ok, to best highlight the stupidity of this I can put it into real life terms using a hypothetical. In WW2 the Nazi's aren't defeated but merely contained by the combined might of Europe, Russia and the USA. Great peace ensues where a grand era of progress, joy, prosperity and hope seem to be in limitless abundance. Good is ascendant and all is well with the world.

Well Mordenkainen doesn't like this and thinks to himself that it would be best to have a balance between good and evil so he allies with Hitler (unconcerned about his genocidal agenda because hey, that's what evil guys do) and works to subvert some European nations allowing them to be reconquered by the Nazis who have been secretly rebuilding their forces during the time of peace following the war.

Mordenkainen is now happy with himself because by bringing war and suffering back on equal footing with joy and hope he has maintained the cosmic balance. For Greyhawk, just replace Hitler with Vecna or Iuz (or whomever would fit) and Nazi's with the armies of said villian and it is easy to see the silliness of this situation.

This is the kind of crap that D&D's alignment system has engendered.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Green Knight]

I don't think Lawful or Chaotic are gone. Here's a quote by Rich Baker.

In response to a poster asking whether WotC considered changing the name of the paladin in light of the fact that paladins can be of any alignment, Rich Baker had this to say:

"Yes, the question was considered, but ultimately it boils down to this: We want one class in the job of "holy warrior", not nine...Currently the text in the Player's Handbook says something to this effect: Paladins are almost always lawful or good. Chaotic or evil paladins do exist in the world, but they're almost never heroes; go see the DM if you want to play one."

If that's what the text in the PHB says, then it looks like Lawful and Chaotic are still in.

 

[bonethug0108]

Where is that? Here?



...because it doesn't say "Lawful characters must obey the laws of the nation they are in" anywhere there.

And, again, it wouldn't matter much if it did. It obviously encompasses more than just any one idea, and because alignment is a guideline, not a straightjacket, it's okay for a character to violate one idea on the condition that they uphold the greater abundance of the alignment, and don't violate that idea on a regular, re-occurring basis.

You're trying to re-define the term. Stop it. This is the kind of thing that causes alignment debates. This is the kind of thing that 4e may be trying to stop by ditching the law/chaos axis. Because players and DMs assume it means something other than what it actually does, leading to (ta da!) arguments over it.

I told you where it says it, both in the LN and LE descriptions. Unless those don't mean anything.

I'm not interpreting anything. I'm telling you EXACTLY what it says, that following law is mentioned in both LN and LE descriptions. No redefining on my part.

That is the problem with alignments, that you read it one way, and I another. It is too open to interpretation.

And yes, I know they explicitly say they aren't straightjackets. But then what do you call getting punished for having a different definition of law from your dm. That is starightjacketing you into having to have the same definition of alignment as your dm.

So no, it doesn't straightjacket your character directly, but it does straightjacket you. In starightjacketing you into having to have the same definition as your dm, it starightjackets your character into following what your dm says alignment is or else you get punsihed.

Go ahead and think I'm trying to start a what is law argument if you want, but that is proving the only point I'm trying to make, that alignments are bad in 3e.

 

[bonethug0108]

I don't think Lawful or Chaotic are gone. Here's a quote by Rich Baker.



If that's what the text in the PHB says, then it looks like Lawful and Chaotic are still in.

Good catch. I forgot all abot reading that. How old is that, anyway?

So perhaps law and chaos are getting their own system like good and evil may be.

I do remember another blog, though, that asked us what we thought chaos meant. Then he went on to say that we'd be wrong(I think). I'm pretty sure that blog was after rich's, though I'm unsure the timeline.

That could still mean that law and chaos get their own system, but it could also mean that chaos has be redifined or that they scrapped it after the fact.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is the kind of crap that D&D's alignment system has engendered.

Aside from the stupidity of syncing up real-world characters with alignment, and your amazing success in Godwining the thread, the idea of "radical neutrality" in a fantasy world is actually a compelling archetype.

The idea of a balance of forces is a powerful one, especially in regards to the "ecological" angle that fantasy can take, regarding the origin of all these forces as natural, and essential to the preservation of continued existence. If Good got to ascendant, existence would end just as solidly as if Evil become ascendant, so those who enjoy existence (e.g.: most folks) would fight both sides.

The idea that darkness and light are dependent on each other is a solid theme in fantasy of many stripes, and the people that must uphold that balance become heroes in a sense, though not in the typical sense.

told you where it says it, both in the LN and LE descriptions. Unless those don't mean anything.

Not much. It's listed along with several other traits. Because alignment isn't a straightjacket, those aren't necessary or sufficient conditions of being Lawful, but they are perhaps examples of it.

That is the problem with alignments, that you read it one way, and I another. It is too open to interpretation.

Actually, the problem would be that people try to get something specific out of it, when it is a broad brush.

And yes, I know the explicitly say the aren't straightjackets. But then what do you call getting punished for having a different definition of law from your dm. That is starightjacketing you into having to have the same definition of alignment as your dm.

Punished how? Why? Changing alignment doesn't hurt your character at all, and any DM who uses it to try to force you to do what he wants isn't being a very good DM, because he's basically trying to ruin your fun.

So no, it doesn't straightjacket your character directly, but it does straightjacket you. In starightjacketing you into having to have the same definition as your dm, it starightjackets your character into following what your dm says alignment is or else you get punsihed.

Go ahead and think I'm trying to start a what is law argument if you want, but that is proving the only point I'm trying to make, that alignments are bad in 3e.

DMs trying to punish people is bad. That's independent of any edition or the existence/nonexistence of alignment. Alignment doesn't make a DM punish you, nor does it help him do it.

Alignment isn't a problem when properly applied, though they are frequently improperly applied by, for instance, DMs who just want to punish their players.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Aside from the stupidity of syncing up real-world characters with alignment, and your amazing success in Godwining the thread, the idea of "radical neutrality" in a fantasy world is actually a compelling archetype.

Stupidity? I think not. Sometimes placing things in terms of real-world characters puts a real perspective on things. The same way a great show like Battlestar Galactica uses themes from real-world conflicts, using real world characters paints a more vivid picture.

Sorry if Hitler is THE modern archetype of a massively (lawful) evil individual. If it works it works and in this case it does.

The idea of a balance of forces is a powerful one, especially in regards to the "ecological" angle that fantasy can take, regarding the origin of all these forces as natural, and essential to the preservation of continued existence. If Good got to ascendant, existence would end just as solidly as if Evil become ascendant, so those who enjoy existence (e.g.: most folks) would fight both sides.

Are you seriously telling me that too much love, trust, cooperation, joy, health, happiness, prosperity, generosity and enlightenment is something a sane person would fight against? Are you telling me that someone other than a complete lunatic would work to bring hate, cruelty, ignorance, depravity, suffering, sorrow, pain, greed, etc. to this situation?

What fantasy or mythic archetype exists who is this righteous servant of balance? I would argue that none exist. Even in D&D novels, there are no such Heroes of Moral Ambiguity. They don't exist because no one can relate to such a hero(?). Such thinking is comepletly outside the human experience as reflected in the world's religions and myths which are where man's understanding of morality and ethics are housed.

Your conception is wildly afield from any mythical, religious, fairytale archetype found anywhere and because of this found nowhere I am aware of in fantasy fiction. Even generally amoral sword and sorcery tales acknowledge that there is nothing ecological about supernatural evil. I say supernatural evil because sword and sorcery often accepts mankind's various evils but even one of REH's blood drenched buccaneers would have nothing in common with evil that exists beyond mortal ken ie that of demons and devils in D&D terms.

This is certainly found nowhere in high fantasy. In High Fantasy evil is always seen as aberration, as utterly unnatural a corruption of the natural order that is permitted by te powers that be as a natual consequence of free will. Sword and Sorcery tales don't go into such things for the most part and often don't even acknowledge the existance of cosmic good or evil.

Your argument stands only upon the shaky foundation of the D&D alignment system. Order and Entropy are both needed for continued existance. In D&D good and evil are not analogous to these forces unless one is using the IMO deeply flawed (both philosophically and mythologically) Great Wheel. Your argument is a D&Dism that can be found in no other context and is supported by nothing more than Gary Gygax's misapplication of both Michael Moorcock's law and chaos cosmic alignment system and the traditional good vs. evil alignment axis found in high fantasy.

The idea that darkness and light are dependent on each other is a solid theme in fantasy of many stripes, and the people that must uphold that balance become heroes in a sense, though not in the typical sense.

This is nothing more than a simplistic dualism rooted in a misunderstanding of the dualism at the root of much of Western Religious thought. The first great dualistic faith Zoroastrianism had two great gods Ahriman (evil) and Ahura Mazda (good). These two were in constant conflict but in the end the good god would triumph according to their prophecies.

In Christianity there is always used an oft spoken statement "You cannot believe in God without believing in the devil." Nonsense. To say this is to make them equivalent cosmic forces when one (Satan/evil) is infinitely inferior to the other (God/good). Somehow the duality of equivalency crept into Christianity (and thereby Western consciousness) via the mistaken idea that God and Satan are two sides of the same coin when this is one of the most nonsensical and unsupported yet popularly believed concepts in the faith. No denomination believes this, though many people do rahter unconsciously hold this belief.

The natural forces of

Life vs. death
law vs. chaos
order vs. entropy

These things are organic, amoral and necessary for continued existance. It is only a D&Dism rooted in misapplied dualism that can imagine that cosmic evil has some essential validity. Only in D&D and only as a rationale for the Great Wheel and its outdated alignment system.



Wyrmshadows

 

[bonethug0108]

snip

You are punished if you are a class that requires being a certain alignment. You don't know you are breaking your code because your definition is different from the dm's. Now the dm has decided that you have not been following your alignment and tells you you can no longer advance in that class and/or lose your powers from it(the ones that are called for).

Now here is where you are confusing a bad dm and one who is only following rules. In my example, a dm is supposed to take away your powers. So when he decides to do so, is he being a bad dm? No.

Okay, now lets say that you talk it out and resolve the issue. You get your powers back but you can no longer play how you thought it was okay to play because your dm has different definitions of the alignments than you.

So now what? Do you play as the dm wishes or ask him to give you leeway? Do you change the way your character has been playing or does your character suddenly change? Do you decide to just play a new character instead because you can't play how you wanted?

And I'm not talking about ridiculous stuff. I'm talking about a monk who steals or a paladin that kills baby orcs. These things can be defined so many different ways by anyone.

Now you are probably soured on characters with alignment restrictions and decide to steer clear to avoid the headache. So instead of playing the cool barbarian character you had planned, you decide to just play a fighter.

This is the problem with alignments in 3e.

 

[Spell]

Lawful doesn't mean that you obey the laws? The 3e PHB seems to say otherwise.

well, 3e PHB is not a philosophy manual, and neither it is historically accurate to flesh out ancien régime societies.

just look at the original meaning of the word "revolution". it had a strong tie with the astronomical meaning, because it was seen as something needed to restore the "logical" old order in the society when the personal misdeeds of kings and nobility (and clergy) had severely unbalanced the "natural" way in which the society worked.

in that sense, one can be extremely lawful and still disregard the law.

on the other hand if D&D is just a game to have some fun with friends, then i have to agree that it's better to remove every rule that might cause confusion and endless discussions between players.

good and evil should be removed too, then.