Law and Chaos gone? Good Riddance!

[Charwoman Gene]

We can accept "Dark Matter" in real life

Some do. Some have a nagging suspicion that modern cosmology is not that far off from consisting of dozens of nested epicycles.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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

That Paladin/Devil example can't happen in a D&D world that pays attention to the RAW:

"Paladins may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with
someone who consistently offends her moral code"

So no paladins aligning with devils against chaotic good elves.

As for balanicng out evil actions with good actions; there is no balancing act inherent in the D&D alignment system (well anymore 2nd edition was a strange abberation) .

from Neutral in the PHB:
"Undecided”: A neutral character does what
seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the
other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral
characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment
to neutrality"

"Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves
philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as
prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way
of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run."

no mention of an obligation to commit good acts and evil acts and makign sure they balance against each other. there is an indication that the balanced individual would avoid good and evil acts.

 

[Cmarco]

Didn't one of the designers say something about most PC paladins being either lawful or good, but not necessarily either? I can't remember...

 

[Lord Zardoz]

That is horrible game design. It is fine if you want to give players freedom to explore what law and chaos means to them, but once you couple it with in game mechanics that can punish you for going against it, you are asking for trouble.

Just look at the monk. What is okay for the monk to do and what isn't. By giving the players such creative freedom that each individual comes up with their own meaning of law and chaos, you are asking for Dm's and players to get into arguments.

I do not think it is horrible game design, in and of its self. It is not great game design, but not that bad. As I said, players and Dm's are going to get into arguments anyway. The only downside to alignment arguments is that they are very dependent on the perspectives of those involved.

Law / Chaos is a bit more tricky than Good / Evil. The best way to put it is to paraphrase a quote. "I may not be able to describe what generally constitutes Lawful (or Chaotic) behaviour. But I know it when I see it."

In my own experience at the game table, alignment issues generally never come up in terms of character actions in game. I think this is as much a consequence of the types of adventures I ran as anything else. But even as a player instead of as a Dm, most alignment arguements are really more about arguements about in game actions by the players that are disruptive to the adventure at hand rather than any real philosophy. I am not saying such things never happen (too many threads about Paladins killing Orc Babies to deny that). But I do think that the issue has been exaggerated well beyond its real impact.

For my own games, it sees that the general impact of most alignment issues is that if there is any significant grey area, to put it to a vote at the table. Alignment by consensus is simple enough to deal with. If the table decides that killing Orc Infants is ok for a Paladin, than let it slide (or be vindictive and throw a nasty encounter at them later if your the DM). But do not hold up the game for a trivial and ultimately meaningless discussion of ethical and moral philosophy as it applies to a game.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[senna]

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.

Although you agreed with me in many instances, i always got the feeling that we disagreed in some basic instance, and this is it, you, along a great number of D&D players and GMs, think that real world morality should be duplicated inside the game. This is a position that i disagree very strongly, the morality of the game isnt ment to create a judicious system of right and wrong as in real life, but to propel the story forward. The actual alignment system, despite its great need for clarification and cleaning from the rules, is a great tool for developing a historyline with multiple sides and few clearly good choices, a good way of handling a game of infinite possiblities as an RPG.

This is why the alignment system of D&D is of relative morality, if most sides have reasonable ways of thinking that they are right, they can serve as more than oponents, but allies, shady dealers that want something else from you or antagonists that have the same objectives as you do, but do things in a diferent way, it creates tension and give more oportunities to roleplay and create more plots.

I dont think your way of thinking is wrong, but you can play like that in the actual system, or in the more streamlined system that they could have created, but if we do things your way we lose oportunities for other kinds of history and tension, and options are normaly better than restrictions.

 

[Najo]

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.

I believe that some portion of Neitzsche's philosophy has merit as it can greatly empower the individual but when taken to extremes it creates a compassionless society and at its most extreme end would argue for things like eugenics. There is nothing ultimately GOOD to be found in using Neitzche as an example of morality.

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.



Wyrmshadows

This is not true. Nearly every political campaign or war has to deal with this issues everytime. Leaders of countries send people into other hostile situations to preserve order or bring about control, ignoring whether it is good or evil. Countless soldiers die in the name of their cause, and the leaders are rarely held responsible for their deaths. If anything, the struggle between good and evil is the one that is a fantasy. Good and evil is largely subjective, aside from a few basic human rights.

For example, two countries can coexist. They can have differing value and political systems, and they can be allies. They can both work towards their view of a lawful society and can benefit from each other. Then, if they come into conflict, the opposing side is made to look "bad" and propaganda is used to incite the people into war. The citizens of those countries are still the human beings who before were allies, but now they have something between them that their leaders both want. Very rarely are conflicts about good or evil.

We can all agree that "evil" is doing unwarranted harm or abuse onto another being regardless of consquences. This is because each of us deep down values our lives and wants to be treated with a certain degree of respect. We also struggle with imposing those values on others, and some of the times its good (like opposing murder and rape) and sometimes its bad (pushing spiritual or political beliefs onto people). We try to work together, but sometimes we can't, and when that happens some people very quickly label things that oppose them as evil.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount law and chaos, they have as much to offer D&D (and the real world) as the ideals of good and evil do.

 

[Sadrik]

Evil doesn't exist


;p

 

[coyote6]

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?

For me, "militant neutrality" only makes sense if the two forces being balanced aren't good and evil per se, but rather the forces of good and the forces of evil (e.g., the celestials vs. the infernals). Then you can argue that if all that was around were the celestials and their mortal minions, they would begin to inflict their ever-more exacting ideas of what is "good" and "proper" on other beings (and, by D&D's alignment rules, start sliding away from "good" and into "neutral" or "evil"), and generally otherwise be bad for everyone. Then you can get into "balance" -- it isn't that you want more cruelty in the world, you just don't want the guys preaching kindness to be the only guys in power (because if nothing else, having a monopoly on power would probably be corrupting).

***

I would prefer alignment be exactly what it says: a declaration of what side you're aligned with. Having "Alignment: Good" would mean you were literally on the side of the angels; it would not mean that you were necessarily a very good person. You might be too judgmental, prone to being doctrinaire, and/or overzealous; hell, you might be a right bastard. Alignment would just be a cosmic badge attached to your soul, effectively; it doesn't necessarily say anything about who you really are.

Then you can have more interesting characters without having to worry about whether they're really "good"; they're aligned with good because they say they are, and because the rest of "good" hasn't repudiated them. Then you can have the Priest King of Istar being Alignment: Good, and still a corrupt tyrant, and you can have Mordenkainen's militant neutrality be a sane idea.

IMO, it feels more realistic.

And it still allows you to have straightforward good vs. evil, too. Gray areas wouldn't be a requirement; you could have a world where being a vicious bastard automatically revokes your good alignment "badge".

 

[Jhulae]

I don't care if it's gone or not, but I *do* wish they'd fix it so it's consistent.

Chaos is not the opposite of Law. It's the opposite of Order.

Law is not the opposite of Chaos. It's the opposite of Anarchy.

So either go with 'Ordered/Chaotic' or 'Lawful/Anarchist', but *make up your minds*.

 

[Spell]

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.

not that many core mechanics are tied to it... and stuff like "this magical item deals damage to you, if you are not LG" can be easily ignored, just like you can ignore alignment restrictions for classes and the like.

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?

not necessarily. if a rule is supposed to regulate a quantifiable part of the game, then they *have* to be clearly defined. you didn't choose a combat related action at random, for your example of how "open" rules might create problems: combat is the one thing in pretty much every role playing system that needs to have clear, fixed rules... but, even then, there are a number of games in which GMs are adviced to "ignore" some monster attack rolls if that means killing a character in an "unproductive", stupid way. ("sorry, joe. the kobold kills you. .i guess you had to take more rest, after killing the dragon and rescuing all of the other PCs corpses...")

pretty much everything else, at one time or another, has been left to the GM to determine. this goes from the specific skills a character has (albeit this, too, is generally strictly regulated in today's RPGs), to rules for chases and movement (take a look at Call of Cthulhu, for example), to specific rules on the size and weight of each character, and so on.

while i certainly agree that undefined rules might cause arguments, so can very specific rules.

example: multiclassing in D&D. it's very specific and very neat... but how is it logical that my 18-int wizard character had to study for years the rudiments of ancient languages and wizardry before taking one level of wizard, and the average joe fighter with an int of 9 can take a level in the same class whenever he feels like? does the fact that he has a dex of 3 not count when he casts a spell with a somatic element?

different games call for different needs, so nobody is right. if you want a more precise way of looking at alignments, check the HackMaster core rules.

what bugs me with 3e is that some rules just have to stay (feats, skill points, reliance on magical items, AC as it is rather than damage reduction), unless one is prepared to pretty much redesign the system in order to balance it out again.

i'm sorry, but i don't see how that is the case with alignment rules.