Law and Chaos - the predictable and not so predictable

[Orius]

I agree -- this seems to be exactly the lines on which D&D organizes alignment. It makes the alignment system pretty incompatible with Taoism and other ideologies that suggest that political action is dangerous or hubristic.

Alignment != religious belief or philosohpical POVs. Alignment has always been more or less presented in broad strokes. The problems with it can arise when DMs and/or players start viewing alignment in very specific terms. Alignment stereotyping is also another problem.

I think this is as good a way as any of dealing with the semi-coherence of the D&D alignment system. If there is anything every D&D GM has in common, it's that we all house-rule alignment -- even those of us who don't admit we are doing so.

It's not so much a matter of house ruling, but rather that alignment is the most subjective aspect of D&D, and heavily suspect to house ruling. Ditching it isn't necessarily the best answer either, because there's plenty of default assumptions within the rules that are built upon alignment conflicts.

 

[Sejs]

Law vs Chaos:

Consistency vs Spontaneity.

That's the long and short of it. Not the existance or absence of rules, but the existance or absence of uniformity amongst successive iterations.

 

[The Shaman]

I generally chalk up Law and Chaos as a matter of "Trusting authority and institutions" and "Distrusting authority and institutions."

Chaotic individuals can have codes, discipline, and even predictability.

What sets them apart, though, is that they have little trust in groups. They'll form personal bonds, but are reticent about forming impersonal ones - they might trust a specific knight, but hold nobility on the whole in suspicion. A chaotic individual can work within or support government and organizations, but strongly believe in accountability.

Conversely, a lawful individual firmly believes in authority and the system. They might not like certain policies or trust certain leaders but, in general, believe that things would be far worse without the institutions in place. A lawful individual can engage in a revolution, but it will be orchestrated by already having people ready to step into leadership positions once it's finished.

I also see that tying into stability and change; lawfulness prefers stability and won't risk a change for the better unless it's nearly guaranteed, whereas chaotic, err..ness...is more willing to risk change, even when there's a good chance it might be a change for the worse.

I agree with everything here - well-put, Trickstergod! - except I would change the initial sentence to read "Trusting authority and institutions" and "Trusting individuality and personal accountability."

I like chaotic organizations, becuase they tend to be lead by those who prove they can lead, and their followers tend to be loyal because they've made a personal commitment to accept the leader's direction. Chaotic groups tend to be stable right up to the moment when the leader fails to deliver...

 

[Psionicist]

Repeat after me: Alignments have never defined a personality.

Just because you act without thinking first, like Homer Simpson or Fry in Futurama, doesn't mean you must be chaotic.
Just because you love to do the same thing every morning when you wake up, doesn't mean you are lawful.

Alignments are very broad. Do you like authority? Then perhaps you are lawful. Does this mean you have to follow the authority? NO! Do you hate the word duty? Then perhaps you are chaotic. Does this mean you will never, ever do anything that is considered a duty somewhere? NO!

The thing is, if you want to play a halfling rogue that acts before she thinks, you will probably slap the chaotic alignment on her because you think it fits. They are NOT the same thing though. Honestly, a Great Magical Sword doesn't give a damn if you _follow_ traditions or not, you have to _like_ it to be the kind of guy who can swing it guud, and that's what alignments are for.

 

[fusangite]

Alignment != religious belief or philosohpical POVs.

What I'm saying, though, is that in the good=strangers are most important; neutral=friends/family are most important; evil=self is most important schema, the Taoist defnition of "good" is in direct conflict with the RAW definition of "good."

It's not so much a matter of house ruling,

Well, it is. Any rule or set thereof that is internally contradictory requires house-ruling. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- it's just how it goes.

but rather that alignment is the most subjective aspect of D&D,

There are other, more subjective things, like how charisma-based skill checks interact with what players state their characters are saying or how they are acting. But this subjectivity isn't fraught with the same disputes because it isn't built on a self-contradicting text.

Ditching it isn't necessarily the best answer either, because there's plenty of default assumptions within the rules that are built upon alignment conflicts.

Agreed. That's why I like to, as the original poster does, collect various people's house-ruling of alignment so I can adapt it better to my campaign.

 

[fusangite]

Repeat after me: Alignments have never defined a personality. Alignment sometimes defines personality depending on what section of the rules you are reading.

Fixed it for you!

 

[Psionicist]

Fixed it for you!

Oops, sorry, forgot to add the In-My-Not-So-Humble-Opinion tag in the beginning of my post.

 

[Warehouse23]

Since I prefere example to description, I thought I'd post my latest take on true neutral. This is the standing on one foot personality description of my latest PC cleric--a NN cleric of Fharlangn. I've always seen neutrality as the foil to the other alignments: Good should compare itself to not-Good (=! Evil) and Chaotic should compare itself to not-Chaotic (=! Lawful). Maybe folks will achieve understanding if they can situate their characters relative to this foil:

Background for Hab (the Wanderer)

Hab has no ancestry to speak of—no family, no clan, and increasingly, not even a town. This he views as a strength, though, rather than as a weakness. Hab builds his heritage daily—his two feet take him where he is want to go. His voice and demeanor bring him new people whose company he can enjoy regardless of class, race, or station. His gifts, provided by He Who Protects All Travelers, earn him friends. His commitment not to judge spares him from all but a few enemies.

Interacting with others, Hab is friendly towards strangers, whose generosity he often relies on when abroad. He is loyal to his friends and always seems to remember a face—building relationships which endure, despite his wanderings. Hab is as willing to help a stranger in a pinch as an old comrade, which is to say he does what he can, when he can.

Hab believes firmly in the responsibility and power of the individual. Every man has a road to walk and no nation, church, or family can spare a man the journey. He respects strong leaders and those who act to bring out the strengths of their followers. He has little patience for sheep, and for those who would keep sheep. That being said, in his travels he has seen many ways of living. Not all he has agreed with, but he is no crusader, looking to bring change to those who would not chose to change on their own. As a healer, his way is to first do no harm. Improving men, making their lives better by strengthening their ability to make their own choices and shape their own destiny, is as natural as healing and growth. Both, however, take time.

 

[physics_ninja]

Firstt the easy one: law and chaos.

The above post by trickster god about consistency vs spontaneity is a good one. In personality terms it could also be described as introvert vs extrovert.

But I also think that it goes beyond that. Chaotic individuals aren’t into planning. The saying “out of sight, out of mind” applies a lot to them. Chaotics will form friendships and enemies, alliances, and make plans, but only in regards to what is affecting them in the here and now. Lawfuls, on the other hand, will take time to consider what has happened in the past and how that affects them today. They will consider what they are doing or what is going on today and how that will affect them tomorrow.

As an example, lawfuls generally will not lie. They understand that if you do lie, sooner or later people will figure it out and stop trusting you, making everything else that much harder. This is important if you plan on staying in one place and plan on investing your time, energy and resources towards building a future (be it a good or evil future). Chaotics that do lie (and not all of them do) either don’t understand that they are making things harder for themselves, or don’t care. Often it doesn’t matter because they don’t plan on being around much longer.

Lawfuls have excellent credit scores. Chaotics have maxed out credit cards.


(sigh)

I was going to go on about good and evil, but I think that as D&D players, and the general pevalance of good vs evil in stories like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, we actually have a pretty good handle on that. It’s the specifics that get us into trouble.

And that is the problem with alignment. As a system it is way too simple to properly describe the range of necessary human behavior. Note that I said necessary. Willful behavior is easy to describe. Killing an orc and stealing his pie just because I hate orcs and like pies can be described as evil. Doing the same because my family is starving to death is more complicated.

Alignment is a great shorthand for those NPCs and monsters that appear on the screen for a short time and/or have simple motivations. The more complicated the situation, the more rapidly it breaks down.

As an aside, that is why the Book of Exalted Deeds (and to a lesser extant, the Book of Vile Darkness) tend to be viewed as failures – all they do is give tools for the reinforcement of simple alignment.

 

[No Name]

A selfless martyr who is willing devote everything including his life and soul for his evil master is not good because his values place others and his cause over himself. He is still evil even though he is not selfish.

On the other side merchants seeking profits are not evil because they seek profits.

Both could definately be accurate, but I think a little more depth would be needed before an assesment could be made. Seeking profit in itself is not an evil act. Seeking profit at the expense of others welfare is. Selfless devotion to a cause, god, or whatever is more misguided than good or evil. Of course, that view is tainted a bit by my own belief that people should think for themselves and not be blind followers. Regardless, the motivation of the selfless devotee is the important part.



The reason I went with predictability and consistency is because the things that defined lawful would often not hold true when it's opposite was applied to chaotic. In other words, lawfuls usually tell the truth, so therefore chaotics must usually lie. Lawfuls tend to follow tradition and work together in communal harmony. Yet when I imagine barbarian tribes, steeped in traditions handed down over generations, working together for survival, I can't apply the general chaotic definition. The same applies to elves, who are often referred to as mildly chaotic.

The classes that cannot be lawful (barbarian and bard) easily fit into the not so predictable category. What drives them into a rage or strikes their fancy today may have no effect tomorrow. While the lawfuls (monk and paladin) will respond in the manner that their code (<-- best word I can think of) directs them to. Even when angry, the monk or paladin should still behave according to that code most of the time, even if the monk cares only for himself and his quest for perfection. The only thing holding an angry barbarian in check would be the barbarian's moral compass (ie. good).