Rule of Three: 20/3/12

[Klaus]

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.)

During the height of the empire of Istar, the Kingpriest (the highest-ranking cleric of Good) began a campaign to rid Krynn of Evil. At first he sent his forces after ogres, goblins and other evil creatures. Then his concept of "evil" began to expand to encompass all that was "not Good". There was a point where he sanctioned the use of mind-reading magic to scan the populace for evil thoughts, equating thoughts with actions.

At a certain point, the Kingpriest raised his voice to the heavens, demanding that the gods of Good bestow upon him the power to eradicate Evil, since they did so with the humble-born knight Huma and he (the Kingpriest) was a much nobler being. For trying to command the gods, the Kingpriest received a comet that hit Istar and caused the Cataclysm.

 

[Dausuul]

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).

Since when did we replace the Law/Chaos axis with the Extrovert/Introvert axis?

 

[GM Dave]

All this talk on what is or is not X alignment but not a single word on how this can be used to actually move an adventure, reward a player, make a better story.

This is my problem with alignment talk is that it is all 'blah' or stuff for players to 'justify' their actions instead of motivate a story or response to a situation.

A faith attribute would be more motivating as then players would have a measure of how much they were connected to the tenants of their god and would be more specific.

A goal mechanic would at least be something that would get players making choices and committing to actions.

Currently, alignment is like pudding dropped on the floor. It makes an interesting pattern on the floor but after that it just lies there and begins to stink after a while.

 

[FireLance]

Since when did we replace the Law/Chaos axis with the Extrovert/Introvert axis?

MBTI alignment. Now, there's a thought.

"Die, perceiver!"

"Wait, I'm casting protection from judgement."

"Grog rage! Grog smash puny thinker scum!"

"Oh yeah? I'm going to smite feeler!"

"I use detect intuitive. Do I sense any?"

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The problem is that many people seem to interpret CN as being CE with low mental ability scores. Sure CN people dislike organization and a lot of things about society in general, and that often puts them ahead of themselves over others, but they also put people they like above the rest of society.

One thing that many forget mention about chaotic characters is they tend to be motivated by their emotions and instincts more than any other alignments would be. Though one can argue that instincts are neutral on the L/C axis, emotions is the stuff of chaos. There's a reason why some LN paragon beings are sort of like automatons, and that the Gods of things like Love or Vengeance tend to be chaotic over lawful.

In fact most people are neutral on the G/E axis, anyone who's more individualistic than others is chaotic. Out of all those chaotic people only a small minority is either good or evil.

As for CN vs. CE, well Catwoman is a Chaotic Neutral character, she's certainly a super-criminal and is almost always out for herself. But she does care about people like Holly Robinson or Batman, not so much about any of the later's associates though.

Jayne Cobb from Firefly is an example of a Chaotic Evil character, with a low intelligence score. He isn't an outright psychopath like how many CE people could be, or a paragon of the CE alignment, but he's certainly selfish to a detriment and needed to be put in line at least once with force and intimidation.

 

[jsaving]

Since when did we replace the Law/Chaos axis with the Extrovert/Introvert axis?

Well said.

Chaotic characters don't like taking orders and see societal organization as a surefire way to prevent people from reaching their potentials, no matter how well-intentioned the law-givers may be. Some may genuinely perceive this kind of thinking as misanthropic, because government programs and the like are so obviously beneficial to society at large that only a misanthrope could oppose them. But there's a Lawful value judgment behind that verdict.

It's a bit akin to saying lawful characters will tend to be extroverts because they understand how important it is for people to work together. Is there any evidence at all that social gregariousness carries with it a desire to follow orders, impose regulations, and be predictable in all things? I very much doubt it. And if these things don't follow, then it similarly doesn't follow that chaotics who place a high value on their personal autonomy will necessarily dislike social interactions.

I'd also disagree with the notion that chaotics "can't work well in teams," and would instead say they can't work well in certain types of teams. If drafted into a group whose predesignated authority figure can compel action, sure, the chaotic character isn't likely to be especially happy about his participation. But if forming a voluntary association to, say, kick a despot out of Sherwood Forest, chaotics can not only "have each other's backs" but can actually carry out the tactical decisions of a Robin Hood even while distrusting authority. The key is that they follow Robin not because they "respect his office" enough to obey his orders, but because they see enough merit in him personally to accept his requests.

 

[Hussar]

Meh, they follow Robin because they have no choice. Follow Robin or be hanged. Most of them were outlaws. If Robin failed, they would turn on him in a moment. Why? Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what can be bought. They no more have Robin's back than a bunch of sharks.

Sure, they work well as skirmishers and ambushers. But, in an open fight, the Merry Men get slaughtered by the well disciplined knights. Again, no choice in the matter.

 

[Dausuul]

One thing that many forget mention about chaotic characters is they tend to be motivated by their emotions and instincts more than any other alignments would be. Though one can argue that instincts are neutral on the L/C axis, emotions is the stuff of chaos. There's a reason why some LN paragon beings are sort of like automatons, and that the Gods of things like Love or Vengeance tend to be chaotic over lawful.

Oh! So now in addition to the Extrovert/Introvert axis, we've got Thinking/Feeling. This really is becoming the MBTI alignment system*. Shall we bring in the other two? Clearly, the Lawful character's focus on an abstract code of conduct bespeaks an Intuitive preference, while the Chaotic's preference for situational morality is more Sensible. And the disciplined Lawful character is Judicial versus the laid-back Chaotic's Perceptive.

All lawful characters are thus ENTJ and all chaotic characters are ISFP. Those are the only two personality types that exist in D&D. If you play your character any other way, you're doing it wrong.

[SIZE=-2]*In real life, of course, the MBTI system is bogus and non-predictive; it tries to cram the wide variety of human personality into a handful of overly prescriptive boxes, and the results are extremely unreliable. People often get very different results depending on which version of the test they take and when they take it. So, really, it's a perfect match for D&D alignment.[/SIZE]

 

[Klaus]

Meh, they follow Robin because they have no choice. Follow Robin or be hanged. Most of them were outlaws. If Robin failed, they would turn on him in a moment. Why? Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what can be bought. They no more have Robin's back than a bunch of sharks.

Sure, they work well as skirmishers and ambushers. But, in an open fight, the Merry Men get slaughtered by the well disciplined knights. Again, no choice in the matter.

That really depends on the interpretation of the Merry Men of Sherwood.

In most versions, they are peasants from the neighbooring area that are fleeing from the forces of the Sheriff of Nottingham, since they were unable to pay their taxes and got evicted (or would otherwise hang). Hardly "sharks".

As peasants bearing the burden of heavy-handed rule, they're pretty self-suficient folk with a natural suspicion of authority figures. All marks them as Chaotic. Along comes a charismatic leader who wants to fight the unjust rulers until the rightful king returns (something between LG and NG). So it is quite possible that the Merry Men were Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good, under the leadership of a Neutral Good Robin Hood.

 

[jsaving]

Meh, they follow Robin because they have no choice. Follow Robin or be hanged. Most of them were outlaws. If Robin failed, they would turn on him in a moment. Why? Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what can be bought.

I would put a somewhat different interpretation on the matter. If Robin's leadership proved poor, they would turn on him in a moment. Why? Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what has been earned.

Where does this idea come from that chaotics will gladly accept leadership as long as a sufficient sum of gold is placed in front of them first? I don't find 'mercenary' in any of my books as synonymous with chaotic, any more than I can find 'introvert' or 'unthinking'. Sure, a lawful individual's *perception* of chaotics might be misanthropes who keep putting themselves ahead of the greater purpose we could achieve with proper societal structure and leadership. But as the much-lamented SRD reminds, chaotics of all stripes think freedom best enables people to reach their potentials. One need not agree with this precept -- and I have many friends from both "sides of the aisle" who don't -- to see that it is neither irrational nor mercenary.