Rule of Three: 20/3/12

[Dausuul]

The idea of a cosmic struggle between Order and Chaos is not unique to Moorcock by any means. Some other examples:

• The Chronicles of Amber, by Roger Zelazny
• The Saga of Recluce, by L.E. Modesitt
• Babylon 5, TV show produced by J. Michael Straczynski
• The Traveler in Black, by John Brunner (not a lot of people have read this, which is a crying shame because it's freakin' awesome)
• The (real-world) Zoroastrian religion

I am of course leaving out all the books based on D&D settings.

 

[Klaus]

The idea of a cosmic struggle between Order and Chaos is not unique to Moorcock by any means. Some other examples:

• The Chronicles of Amber, by Roger Zelazny
• The Saga of Recluce, by L.E. Modesitt
• Babylon 5, TV show produced by J. Michael Straczynski
• The Traveler in Black, by John Brunner (not a lot of people have read this, which is a crying shame because it's freakin' awesome)
• The (real-world) Zoroastrian religion

I am of course leaving out all the books based on D&D settings.

In "Three Hearts & Three Lions", the central conflict is also between Order and Chaos, the devout Empire of mankind vs. the capricious Faerie.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I don't really see LN as that hard of an alignment. The character that's about upholding the status quo, regardless of any moral issues, epitomizes LN. The extreme conservative on one hand and the "hanging judge" on the other. As a PC, I'm not too worried about this character - he's got pretty strong convictions and, while he might be abrasive as heck, he's reliable and a team player.

As far as the Law vs Chaos thing, I can see what you're talking about. It certainly works on a macro level, although, I think you can argue that Bab 5 is far more about Law vs Chaos than maintaining balance between the two. The Bab 5 project isn't about balancing anything, it's about trying to achieve order - peace in our time. But, again, the problem isn't on the macro level, but on the individual character level. While you might frame the conflict that way, the individual players are almost never balanced - they work for one side or the other.

 

[pemerton]

there are still a number of alignments unlikely to see much use by players. LN, for example. How often does anyone have a character whose goal is order above all things? I think it's much more likely that you'd see someone who's either doing so for the good of others (LG) or out for themselves (LE). LN is really a very abstract sort of ideal.

Honestly, I don't really see LN as that hard of an alignment. The character that's about upholding the status quo, regardless of any moral issues, epitomizes LN. The extreme conservative on one hand and the "hanging judge" on the other. As a PC, I'm not too worried about this character - he's got pretty strong convictions and, while he might be abrasive as heck, he's reliable and a team player.

Just adding to what Hussar said, I see LN as a popular choice for players wanting to play civilised/socially well-adjusted PCs - especially clerics - but who don't want to get caught up in their GM's idiosyncratic conception of good vs evil. So it's a way of sending a signal "My PC is part of the established social order, and now I want to leave the alignment system alone."

 

[D'karr]

I want them to bring alignment back with a vengeance...

Why? So we can spend pages, upon pages, upon pages arguing that CN does not mean what you think it means.

Yes, it does. No, it doesn't.

'Cause we really need a heck of a lot more of that.

-

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That's not all of CN. And CN, LN and Evil people can and do have friends.

Yeah, they can and do have friends, but they are the vast exception rather than the rule.

If alignment is a spectrum from Lawful(I like groups, I hate being alone, I think people working together with rules helps the world) to Neutral(I don't care if I'm in a group or not, I think it doesn't matter if you are alone or with a group) to....Chaotic(I hate groups, I want to be alone, I think people working together is a bad idea and fails, only individuals working by themselves succeed).

People tend to mistake Chaotic for Neutral. As long as Neutral is the middle ground between extremes, Chaotic has to mean something that isn't "I can do what I want".

Evil people can, of course, have friends. CE, not so much. Given that it's the Law/Chaos axis that determines your methodology in terms of working as a group.

Not having friends is more a mark of certain character flaws and or having low charisma or other low mental ability scores as opposed to anything to do with alignment.

It's not just that. As people have pointed out, not everyone is a paramour of their alignment. Not all CN people have 0 friends. But most of them have very few friends. And almost none of them are good friends. They are loners by nature. Sometimes that means they tolerate being in small groups with a loose organization.

But they have problems with rules and authority(they aren't just ambivalent towards them, that's Neutral). So they hate being told to do anything by other people. Obviously, not all of them being paramours of their alignment, some tolerate authority and rules(like let's split the treasure evenly, your watch is 2 hours then wake the next person up, please don't run ahead of the rest of the party, etc). However, their alignment predisposes them to break rules just because they are rules. After all, that increases Chaos. You can't be too predictable, that's orderly.

I'd go as far as to say that CN being anarchists at heart that one that WAS a paragon of his alignment would instead do things like randomly determine their actions in combat, randomly determine which side to help out each time there is a combat, and even randomly decide whether they will be adventuring with the party each day. They would actively tear down governments simply because they don't like the idea of anyone being in charge of anyone. They would flaunt laws not for any reason other than they have to act contrary to the rules.

Most people who play CN are actually playing TN. They work much better with other people.

CN is also not about being a jerk either. Anybody can be a jerk, especially LG people.

I think that in an adventuring party, working together tends to be praised more than breaking rules and looking out for yourself. So, although anyone can be a jerk as a personality trait, simply following your alignment correctly as CN ends up being a jerk.

The problem is that the paramour of CN is so horrendously jerky, that each person who plays CN is determining how BIG of a jerk they want to be.

 

[Klaus]

A couple of thoughts:

- Any single alignment can encompass a variety of interpretations.
- Chaotic Neutral is not only someone who does what he wants, regardless of someone else's opinions, it's someone who actually *dislikes* organization and even civilization. Like Conan, who had a pretty low opinion on the so-called civilizations of Hyboria. This trait mellowed a bit when he became a king himself, and saw the benefits of culture, art and knowledge.
- Lawful Neutral is someone who despises "randomness". Things must be by-the-book. Contingencies must be put in place. Laws should be clear and obeyed, to "level the playing field" of life.

 

[Tallifer]

True Fanaelialae, but, while I'm a HUGE fan of Moorcock, the whole Eternal Champion and balance thing was mostly his schtick. I'm not really sure that we have to keep this tradition when most of fantasy doesn't. You don't see it in writers like Robert Jordan or Steven Erikson. And there are a whole slew of golden age fantasy writers that certainly didn't include the concept either.

The Neutral Balancer makes perfect sense in a Moorcock universe. But, Moorcock's universe ignored morality by and large. Most of those devoted to balance were outright evil. This view works fine if you want to have a Moorcock style 'verse, but, I'm not sure if D&D is the right place for that at its base. At least, not anymore, if it ever really was. Moorcock's politics in his writing are particularly suited to having a Neutral Balance alignment, but, I don't think most settings actually follow those tendencies.

I thought that part of the story of Dragonlance was that the god of good went too far and tried to make the world all lawful and good, but the balance was so far disrupted that Evil was able to destroy everything and take over. (Please someone who knows about this correct me or elucidate more.)

 

[Yora]

A couple of thoughts:

- Any single alignment can encompass a variety of interpretations.
- Chaotic Neutral is not only someone who does what he wants, regardless of someone else's opinions, it's someone who actually *dislikes* organization and even civilization. Like Conan, who had a pretty low opinion on the so-called civilizations of Hyboria. This trait mellowed a bit when he became a king himself, and saw the benefits of culture, art and knowledge.
- Lawful Neutral is someone who despises "randomness". Things must be by-the-book. Contingencies must be put in place. Laws should be clear and obeyed, to "level the playing field" of life.

Which I agree with. The problem is that the people who write official D&D books can't agree on this. Or agree on anything when it comes to alignment.

 

[Klaus]

Which I agree with. The problem is that the people who write official D&D books can't agree on this. Or agree on anything when it comes to alignment.

It is popular to have Batman and Superman be of different alignments (Batman is cool, Superman is "goody-two-shoes"), but I see them both as being Lawful Good. They both have a high moral standard and fight to defend the innocent. Both work with law enforcement, even when it is out to get them. They leave criminals to be tried by the justice system, instead of taking matters into their own hands. Batman is the ultimate planner, with contingencies for pretty much everything. Neither one kills, ever. And Batman never, ever uses a gun, which marks his strict personal code.

This just goes to show that alignments are broader than most people give them credit for.