Law and Chaos gone? Good Riddance!

[Slander]

The problem with the Lawful and Chaotic alignments has always been that they conflate three different axes of behavior/ideology:

1. Community versus Individual. The Lawful character believes in working within the community and adhering to social norms, even if it means sacrificing one's independence. The Chaotic character believes in maintaining independence and freedom of action, even if it means violating the rules of the community. 3E example: Devils adhere rigidly to the rules of their community and so are Lawful, even though some lack the intelligence to plan ahead and none has any personal code of behavior.

2. Methodical versus Spontaneous. The Lawful character acts in a methodical, organized fashion, trying to have a plan of action for every eventuality. The Chaotic character acts in an improvised, spontaneous fashion, trying to maintain flexibility at all times. 3E example: Barbarians tend to act spontaneously and so cannot be Lawful, even though they may work within their communities and may have clearly defined codes of behavior.

3. Principled versus Adaptive. The Lawful character has a clearly defined code of behavior and tries to uphold it regardless of the situation. The Chaotic character dislikes hard-and-fast rules and believes in adapting one's behavior to the needs of the moment. 3E example: Paladins follow a clearly defined code of behavior and so must be Lawful, even though they may work outside the community and may act in a spontaneous way.

I've always intuitively picked out a single one of these concepts and acted accordingly. Granted, I didn't have this concise division (thanks for that, btw), but I always knew that Law/Chaos wasn't a one size fits all deal. Because I always made a clear choice, it has always been easy to diffuse any Law/Chaos arguments involving my character.

However, I've always played the Good portion of my alignment in a single fashion. The other people in my group also play their good characters in a similar fashion to my own. The in-character conflict in our group almost always revolves around the Law/Chaos axis rather than the Good/Evil axis. And I wonder if it's because the Good/Evil axis is a simpler ideal to resolve (in that there's only one version of similar ideals), or if we just all happen to pick up and play the same concept of Good?

Dausuul gives three clear dichotomy's of the Law/Chaos alignment, all of which might be at odds with each other even if they share the same Law/Chaos alignment. Is there a similar breakout for the Good/Evil axis, or is there but one line in the sand dividing the two?

 

[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.

My point is that justifying the unjustifiable in the context of a role playing game with moral absolutes should be very difficult, but in D&D it isn't. In fact people think it sensible that paladins and devils go to war against elves who've teamed up with demons because the former team is lawful and the other is chaotic.

Only in D&D is it conceivable to do lots of good and then balance that out with plenty of evil and end up as anything other than an evil SOB. Morality isn't a weird balancing act anywhere else but in the irrational alignment speak of D&D.

Keeping things in the context of RPing games alone can give us plenty of examples. Though sometimes it is necessary to reference myths and religion (even if broadly) in order to make a point. If D&D's morality bear no semblance to either real-life or even mythical morality why bother with it at all?



Wyrmshadows

 

[senna]

You should realize that Nietzsche would in a high fantasy game like D&D, be LE. He is a proponant of the superman who determines his own morality and is a proponant of a moral darwinism that stands in direct opposition to anything that D&D or any fantasy fiction for that matter would consider good.

First of all lets make a diference between good, what every individual or society thinks that is best for it, and "GOOD", the cosmological force with "objective" standarts of D&D. You asked if a sane person would consider that more sufering would be good, Nietzsche is a quite reasonable person that thinks that strugle and survival of the fittest lead to more good, i never said that he is "GOOD", but only that there is a way of thinking that grounded in reason.

But, i dont think that Nietzsche is "EVIL" either, he propose strugle and competition, not strife and betrayal, aways thinking about the good of the future generations. He seems a well fared candidate for a neutral philosopher, you must do what you have to do for the good of yourself and the others, if the most eficient way of doing that is an "EVIL" act, is the right way. He teaches that too much "GOOD" leads to mediocrity by leting weak people to live, and the human aspiration is excelence, its oposite, the same way if you are too ruthless you could cripple the chance of excelence to arise.

In order to "balance the scales" in a situation of good being truly ascendant, someone like Mordenkainen would have to either commit grievous acts of evil or aid and abet acts of great evil this would by any rational assessment make him evil.

Can anyone really imagine that anyone who rescues 300 orphans from burning buildings, can seek to balance out their behavior by brutally murdering 20 prostitutes? I'm sure this person would be considered an evil bastard, a tragically evil bastard perhaps for all the god he's done, but someone deserving punishment for capital murder.

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. Someone fighting to balance out good and evil can only only happen in D&D and only in D&D can anyone attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Here we enter other problem with this alignment system, the way that alignment is infered. First of all let me say that for me change of alignment is a convergence of intentions, actions and efects, and a real change would only hapends when you try to racionalize your intentions, actions and efects in a diferent way than before, and think you are Right this time.

An adend to that issue, D&D is a moral relativistic game, although it look manicheistic from the outside, "EVIL" people dont think of themselfs as wrong doers, they think the way they choose is the right way, and everybody else is too naive to realise, the same with "GOOD", "CHAOTIC", "NEUTRAL" and "ORDER", beter name than Lawful, people.

That said, ponctual "EVIL" acts dont make you "EVIL" in an instant, your intentions, acts and efects past and present should enter in the calculations. Mordenkainen is looking at the realy big picture, his actions are made for decade in advance, he acts with a clear intention and rarely achieves non expected results, he doesnt commit grievous acts of evil, he does the necessary, ands to him is right, to others is an despicable action, and wrong, and neither, in D&D is of target.

 

[bonethug0108]

See the problem is that if you actually read the whole alignment section, all the alignments are defined by BOTH the cosmological forces and the ideals those words represent.

Anyone who says otherwise has not read the alignment chapter, has grossly misunderstood it, or has choosen to ignore those parts(not directed at anyone in particular; just thought it needed to be stated).

This is why there is a problem with alignments, along with everything I've said in previous posts.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Dausuul gives three clear dichotomy's of the Law/Chaos alignment, all of which might be at odds with each other even if they share the same Law/Chaos alignment. Is there a similar breakout for the Good/Evil axis, or is there but one line in the sand dividing the two?

I can't think of a breakout like Dausuul posted for Law and Chaos, but there is no one line in the sand, either. There are a few "universal" marks of good versus evil such as murder, but there are many more that are influenced by societal context.

Of course in D&D things are different because the deities are tangibly real and directly influence the world, as opposed to the real world where the existence of deities of different religions is a matter of belief and the doctine of those deities can be influenced by human beings for their own gain without fear of being punished through being stripped of class abilities and powers.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Allow me to add, in response to a prevalent idea in D&D "morality" that good must be balanced out against evil or it becomes a dangerous force.

Nonsense.

There is nothing destructive to life about good, there is nothing inherently dangerous about good, their is nothing needlessly cruel about good, there is nothing that is needlessly hurtful about good, there is nothing that is inherently selfish about good. And so on and so on.

There is nothing immoral about good because as soon as it becomes so it is no longer good.

Every time I see someone write about how good becomes too rigid, controlling, domineering when it gets the upper hand, and yet still be referred to as good, I have to laugh at the complete misunderstanding of the term good inherent in that argument. Saying that good, when overdone would lead to a fascist state of some kind with Inquisitors imprisoning people for thought crimes is like saying that if fire was to grow too overwhelming it would become wet.

I cannot fathom the concept of too much good.....basically turning into evil!?!?!

Again I reiterate:

There is nothing immoral about good because as soon as it becomes so it is no longer good.

Sorry if I appear pedantic, but I cannot help but be surprised that this simple truth would be so easily missed.

No, again a misapplication of concepts. Individual mortal people, flawed people (or elves, dwarves, etc.) in the pursuit of good can go too far becoming themselves evil in their efforts to eradicate evil. The real life Inquisition is an example of individuals who really and truly believed that they were fighting evil. They believed they were doing good and according to the dominant belief system in the Western world at that time they were doing great good by eradicating a clear and present danger. However, the zeal by which these inquisitors did their duties transformed what may have been a sincerely good intention into something terrible and ultimately evil for all the loss of innocent life that was a result.

I am not arguing that the Inquisition was good, not at all, just that those who participated in it very likely believed themselves to be doing a very good thing. It is the perfect example of human failings turning the desire to do good into a source of evil.

In D&D there are safeguards that can prevent abuses such as clerics losing their spells or a cleric being struck down by a pissed off deity who is tired of evil being done in his or her name. Unfortunately outside of RPing games and fantasy novels no such safeguards exist.

A hero who starts out good, but looses everything because of a villian, can become so consumed with vengeance that he becomes as cruel and ultimately as evil as that which he is seeking to destroy. Jung was right about us looking into the abyss.

Cosmic good, pure good as exists in fantasy millieus and at the highest levels of some real-life spiritual traditions cannot be turned to evil. Evil arises from the misuse of what was initially good and through mortal (or even divine in the case of D&D's fallable gods) excess and weakness that what was once good becomes evil.

Ponder this grasshopper:

If "excess" good in D&D can become evil and still be called good in a bizarro-world loop of some kind it would rationally follow that excessive evil would loop around on itself thereby becoming good while still being referred to as evil.

I like to call this the Ouroboros Principle of Nonsensical Alignment.



Wyrmshadows

 

[bonethug0108]

I think some people confuse good with law when they say absolute good is "too rigid, controlling, domineering when it gets the upper hand".

That is not good to me. Yet this is how we can all look at the same term and come up with a million and one different concepts of what good is.

It is too open to interpretation and is too tied to mechanics, which in turn leads to arguments. Alignment as is in 3e should die. I only hope 4e brings about something better and not worse.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

-----edit------

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I think some people confuse good with law when they say absolute good is "too rigid, controlling, domineering when it gets the upper hand".

That is not good to me. Yet this is how we can all look at the same term and come up with a million and one different concepts of what good is.

It is too open to interpretation and is too tied to mechanics, which in turn leads to arguments. Alignment as is in 3e should die. I only hope 4e brings about something better and not worse.

I think you are right, but it is quite a thing to conflate the two when D&D has such clear, black and white assumptions about these things. If this were Michael Moorcock's universe I would agree that both law and chaos must be balanced.

As it stands now, D&D's alignment system being what it is. Arguments about the merits of fighting for the cause of evil to fight the evil of good are just senseless.

Alignment as it stands needs to die because it doesn't make any sense. This is apparent via the fact that people have probably been arguing about this stuff for 30yrs.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Wyrmshadows]

First of all lets make a diference between good, what every individual or society thinks that is best for it, and "GOOD", the cosmological force with "objective" standarts of D&D. You asked if a sane person would consider that more sufering would be good, Nietzsche is a quite reasonable person that thinks that strugle and survival of the fittest lead to more good, i never said that he is "GOOD", but only that there is a way of thinking that grounded in reason.

I agree with you. The problem is that D&D's alignment system is too simplistic and of course cannot possibly grok the complete picture of human ethical/moral systems, however it isn't its mere simplicity that is problematic. I see huge illogical holes in it that make room for silly paradoxical situations like the one Mordenkainen situation I offered up in my previous post.

But, i dont think that Nietzsche is "EVIL" either, he propose strugle and competition, not strife and betrayal, aways thinking about the good of the future generations. He seems a well fared candidate for a neutral philosopher, you must do what you have to do for the good of yourself and the others, if the most eficient way of doing that is an "EVIL" act, is the right way. He teaches that too much "GOOD" leads to mediocrity by leting weak people to live, and the human aspiration is excelence, its oposite, the same way if you are too ruthless you could cripple the chance of excelence to arise.

There is a lot of truth in Nietzsche but in D&D I think that maybe it would be a neutral philosophy but it can easily be taken into the realm of evil with the slightest nudge. I see a lot more evil individuals getting traction out of Nietzsche's ideas than those with good alignment in D&D of course.

Here we enter other problem with this alignment system, the way that alignment is infered. First of all let me say that for me change of alignment is a convergence of intentions, actions and efects, and a real change would only hapends when you try to racionalize your intentions, actions and efects in a diferent way than before, and think you are Right this time.

I'm with you on that. Changing alignment isn't "Hey I'm gonna be a bad/good guy." In any campaign with depth their would have to be an organic change that is a transformation of worldview. A character doesn't choose to be LG or CN for example, a confluence of their intrinsic nature, life experiences, values, principles, etc. converge into the thing we in D&D-speak call alignment.

An adend to that issue, D&D is a moral relativistic game, although it look manicheistic from the outside, "EVIL" people dont think of themselfs as wrong doers, they think the way they choose is the right way, and everybody else is too naive to realise, the same with "GOOD", "CHAOTIC", "NEUTRAL" and "ORDER", beter name than Lawful, people.

Absolutely right. Only the thinnest and most B-movie of heroes and villians say things like "I serve good/evil." No one serves good or evil really, they serve their principles and values in the form of the god(s) they worship, the organizations they support and the quests they embark upon. A paladin of Bahamut loves and serves Bahamut because of a resonance or inner-calling to that deity because they both share similar values. Bahamut happens to be good, but a paladin or priest of the god loves and serves the god and not some kind of weird ethos irregardless of its standard bearer.

Hopefully 4e dumps the idea of clerics just serving good, neutral or evil. Mortals just don't think on those terms...not believable mortals anyway. I can see a cleric or paladin acknowledging that following their god keeps them on the path of righteousness, but righteousness is born of what one does and not some bizarre nameless, impersonal "good" metaphysical principle.

That said, ponctual "EVIL" acts dont make you "EVIL" in an instant, your intentions, acts and efects past and present should enter in the calculations. Mordenkainen is looking at the realy big picture, his actions are made for decade in advance, he acts with a clear intention and rarely achieves non expected results, he doesnt commit grievous acts of evil, he does the necessary, ands to him is right, to others is an despicable action, and wrong, and neither, in D&D is of target.

Again, correct.

However, I just think that Mordenkainen thinking in this manner is outside the boundaries of any teneble or sensible morality. I think that Mordenkainen thinking in this way and subjectively considering his acts necessary makes sense. However to give such thinking some cosmic merit and validity is IMO a tremendous weakness of D&D morality and alignment. Nothing in the vast range of human experience references an archetype of someone who brings evil to good for the sake of "balance" who would be other than mad or evil himself.

But Mordenkainen's thinking makes sense along the cosmic alignment axis of D&D and this is why I believe that the axis has got to go.



Wyrmshadows