Law and Chaos gone? Good Riddance!

[JDJblatherings]

... and only in D&D can anyone attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Wyrmshadows

People do it all the time in the real world, that is they justify the unjustifiable.

Discussing this will quickly lead to politics and other areas off limits here at enworld.

 

[Dragonblade]

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.

It may be a constant theme in some fantasy works, but it is also completely and utterly ridiculous. The idea of radical neutrality is one of the absurdities engendered by the existing alignment system. There is no such thing as neutrality with respect to good and evil because there is no such thing as "too much" good. If too much good is bad then it would no longer be good, it would be bad.

This false dilemma is the worst kind of cliche fantasy tripe. Dragonlance is a good example. In Dragonlance, the Priest King of Istar was put forth as an example of what happens when there is "too much" power in the hands of Good. But the King Priest wasn't good. He was a tyrannical dictator who said he was good.

But most great evils are perpetrated by those claiming they are in the right. That doesn't make them right. Conversely, it should also be stated that some who claim they are in the right, actually are in the right and justified in making that claim....

Regardless, this only proves that facts and reason are paramount, not opinion and perspective in determing Good and Evil.

Either way, there is no such thing as "too much" good.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

"However D&D takes two incompatible systems, the traditional fantasy trope of good vs. evil and adds Moorcock's order vs. entropy axis on top of it."

actually D&D took the law and chaos axis and added good and evil on top of it.

Looking at the way Law and Chaos are described in the BECMI D&D (the boxed sets w. Elmore-painted dragon covers), they're essentially just fancy names for "good" and "evil", and there certainly isn't the Moorcockian idea of Balance as the desirable thing in sight.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Seriously, the OP's post demonstrates why Law and Chaos are at least taking a back seat.

Put simply, people get too wrapped up in their own definitions of the term and fail to realize that these are broader concepts than "obeys the law" and "does random goofy stuff" (though these are included in the concepts). Law and Chaos is a more difficult conflict to understand than Good and Evil because they're less instantly emotional, and less rehearsed in our media stages.

For example:
*SNIP*.

Well said! I personally LOVE the alignment system...as what it should be: a metaphysical under pinning of the multiverse, and a rough description of the *typical* outlook of an NPC.

We can accept "Dark Matter" in real life, but not the concept and frisson between Law vs Chaos, Goos vs Evil in a fantasy setting...WTH?! lol

Either way, there is no such thing as "too much" good.

You are looking at it from a limited, mortal point of view. Absolute good and absolute evil aren't things we mere mortals could survive, mentally, hm?

 

[Spell]

So what's a dm to do in this case. The player did act pretty hastily. Did he really have to kill the babies? They didn't commit any evil. Just because you suspect someone will commit evil does not give you the right to kill them. It would be like me killing a murderer's baby just because I think they will grow up to be a mass murderer. After all, it's in the gene's, right?

as you said, it's up to the DM.

if he wants to enforce a given philosophy in his game world (killing baby orcs is not good), and he realizes that the player (or the character) didn't really mean to commit what he considers an evil act, the DM might allow the character to atone in some way.

if the DM doesn't want his campaign world to be so immersed into high moral choices, he might decide to just go forward with the adventure.

So many ways to interpret things. That is why alignment is bad in 3e.

bad? i don't know if it's because i started playing in the old days when the rules weren't meant to quantify as much as possible, but i see "so many ways to interpret things" as a definite plus.

today, i feel like running a series of adventures in the high fantasy world of XYZ, where the heros are Heroes, good and evil are definite tangible forces, and there are clear moral rules laid out in front of the characters.

tomorrow, i'll feel like running a one-shot in the low fantasy, sword & sorcery world of ABC, in which paladins drink the boiled blood of baby orcs, and a just king is one that cuts the hand of a thief.

different worlds, same rules.


how would removing alignment change things? simple: if i want to play in XYZ, i have to do some work to come up with a set of rules. less options, more work.

i loved all the options that are in 3e... until i realized that if i wanted to change some things (reliance on magical items, assumed wealth, huge amount of unrelated feats, and so on), i was completely on my own AND i had to change other parts of the game that i was ok with (like combat, or the way classes are balanced).
that is a way of giving options that i didn't like.

but the alignment rules take... what? 2 pages in the PHB? and they can be embraced or disreagarded completely as you fancy.

by the way, as someone else has pointed out, the 2 axis are going to stay, so...

 

[JDJblatherings]

Looking at the way Law and Chaos are described in the Basic D&D (the boxed sets w. Elmore-painted dragon covers), they're essentially just fancy names for "good" and "evil", and there certainly isn't the Moorcockian idea of Balance as the desirable thing in sight.

I'm not talking basic sets here i'm talking original D&D. page 9 of my men&magic book has a chart showign which speices are grouped unde reach alignment, no discussion about good or evil is made.

from the greyhawk supplement-
Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's
part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to
stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that— chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to
have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. While there is no
rule to apply to groups of chaotic players operating in concert, referees are urged to formulate some rules against continuing co-operation as fits their particular situation, but
consideration for concerted actions against chaotic players by lawful ones should be
given.

yup some mixing up of chaotic and evil behavior but it certainly doens't indicate chaos is universally evil just really bad at long lasting cooperation.

in the eldritch wizardry supplement we see the AD&D system starting to appear with the introcution of some momsters as Lawful with neurtal tendencies, highly good and highly evil but otherwise lawful along with chaotic creatures that are highly evil. Distinctions within the law-neutal-chaos axis.

 

[Dragonblade]

You are looking at it from a limited, mortal point of view. Absolute good and absolute evil aren't things we mere mortals could survive, mentally, hm?

But see, if absolute good was some eldritch force inimical to human life, then I wouldn't use the phrase "good" at all. Some other word should be chosen.

IMO, good means just that. That something is good, and hence desirable. As soon as it ceases to be "good", then it no longer is good.

 

[Spell]

Unfortunately, only in D&D are there even arguments about moral issues that do not and cannot ever take place either in real life or in ANY fantasy fiction.

well, in the lord of the rings, to name a little meaningless book, there is a clear idea of what is good and what is evil, as far as i remember (it's been years, since i last read it). boromir tries to commit an evil act to get the ring from frodo... and see how much trouble came from that!!!

anyway, that's besides the point. my point, as i have just said is that the alignment rules are something that stayed in the game since its beginning some 30 years ago. it's antiquated? maybe. but given that it's a set of rules that can be easily ignore causing very very very very very very little trouble in the way the game flows... why change it? why throwing it out of the window?

because it doesn't make any sense to some people? well, they can toss it out of their game. i'm sure nobody will accuse them of any crime.

 

[Spell]

i think this whole debate boils down to one single question:

what kind of game is D&D trying to be?

if it's a game trying to mirror medieval legends and folklore or some specific fantasy litterature (lord of the rings, or high fantasy in general), then the alignment has to stay in an play a much bigger role than does in 3e.

if it's a generic game that tries to give to its players a good set of rules to shape their game setting after this or that fantasy novel/ film/ whatever, then the alignment has to stay, because some people *will* need those rules. on the other hand, it doesn't have to play a big role... you can make it as strict as you like in your campaigns.

if, instead, D&D is a game set in a specific world, and most of its rules serve only as far as they can be applied in that specific setting, then the alignments can be thrown out *if* the game world doesn't put a strong emphasis on good vs. evil, or lawful vs. chaotic.

 

[bonethug0108]

bad? i don't know if it's because i started playing in the old days when the rules weren't meant to quantify as much as possible, but i see "so many ways to interpret things" as a definite plus.

Well I should have added the second part to that. I've been arguing this elsewhere and it has become exhaustive.

Interpretation can be a big plus. I actually like the idea of alignment. I think where it BECOMES bad is when so many of the core mechanics are tied to it.

Think of any rule that is not clearly defined. Now don't you think it would be better if a rule was clearly defined rather than not because of what it leads to: arguments?

Here's an example of a rule about throwing a knife(not well defined):
To throw a knife first decide who your target is and then throw it at them.

Here is the example with it being well(or well based on how quickly I wrote this) defined:
1. Determine if you have line of sight to the target.
2. Determine how far away your intended target is and then take into account the penalty for distance based on the weapons range when making the attack roll.
3. Make an attack roll against the target, taking into account all relevant modifiers.
4. Determine if you hit the target.
5. If you hit the target roll the damage and add any relevant modifiers.

Can you guess how many issues can come up when using the first one? Or even using the second one(no mention of cover, damage reduction, etc.)?

Now if you would take and untie alignment from the rest of the mechanics of the game and make it its own system, I think it would work a million times better, and I hope this is what they are doing.