Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 7818478" data-attributes="member: 75787">Hmmm. It's a little hard to reconcile your theory that Gygax wanted the Law/Chaos axis to be a sub-choice within the Good/Evil axis with the fact that the Law/Chaos axis came first. Frankly it also makes the whole 9 alignment system useless; that's a reasonable change to want to make, along the lines of the 4E 5-alignment system which essentially made lawful a flavor of good, and chaotic a flavor of evil. But the Law / Chaos divide was the original alignment; D&amp;D owed to Moorcock and it makes them game much richer and more interesting to think of the two axes as actual axes rather than one just being a flavor of another. Perhaps Gygax changed his thinking when he added the good/evil axis, but the latest version does not have lawful good people strive only for maximal good, as you say. Here's a more modern definition of LG:&quot;A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty, though will often regret taking any action they fear would violate their code; even if they recognize such action as being good&quot;Note that it specifically says they will regret taking unlawful actions which are good. They are not striving for maximal goodness and this definition clearly states that they are conflicted between law/duty and good. I really think this is the general position and your suggestion that there is never a conflict as law is always subservient to maximal good is not the usual one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gorgon Zee, post: 7818478, member: 75787"] Hmmm. It's a little hard to reconcile your theory that Gygax wanted the Law/Chaos axis to be a sub-choice within the Good/Evil axis with the fact that the Law/Chaos axis came first. Frankly it also makes the whole 9 alignment system useless; that's a reasonable change to want to make, along the lines of the 4E 5-alignment system which essentially made lawful a flavor of good, and chaotic a flavor of evil. But the Law / Chaos divide was the original alignment; D&D owed to Moorcock and it makes them game much richer and more interesting to think of the two axes as actual axes rather than one just being a flavor of another. Perhaps Gygax changed his thinking when he added the good/evil axis, but the latest version does not have lawful good people strive only for maximal good, as you say. Here's a more modern definition of LG: "A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty, though will often regret taking any action they fear would violate their code; even if they recognize such action as being good" Note that it specifically says they will regret taking unlawful actions which are good. They are [U]not[/U] striving for maximal goodness and this definition clearly states that they are conflicted between law/duty and good. I really think this is the general position and your suggestion that there is never a conflict as law is always subservient to maximal good is not the usual one. [/QUOTE]

Verification