The Alignment Wars - my stance in the trenches

[BryonD]

The way I see it, alignment is something that depends on a character's stance or actions - not the other way round. That's why I don't understand people who say that alignments are "restricting" or "straightjackets". Alignments don't determine anything, they are determined, so how can they restrict anything? They don't prevent a character from doing or thinking anything, instead that character's alignment will be chosen according to what he does or think.

I agree 100%.

Whenever I read someone saying they don't like the systrem because it tells people how to behave, I instantly discount anything else they say.

FWIW, I like that the alignment system is more clear than real world. Playing in ambiguous moral situations is certainly very fun. But for the classic high heroic fantasy that D&D best fits, a true sense of good vs. evil (and/or law vs. chaos) is even more fun.

Lastly, I find it ironic that while the 9-faction aligment system can be shown to not model the real world consistently and is therefore considered, "unrealistic", we are quite content to define true-life real world people as left-center-right.

 

[Turjan]

I can only repeat what others have already said before me:

The chaotic good character would get along nicely with kender, as tolerance, or even ignorance , is part of his character. The lawful good char, on the other hand, would put an end to their "evil" deeds .

 

[Tonguez]

I like that the alignment system is more clear than real world. Playing in ambiguous moral situations is certainly very fun. But for the classic high heroic fantasy that D&D best fits, a true sense of good vs. evil (and/or law vs. chaos) is even more fun.

Ah but thats the problem there. Everyone has an understanding and is quite able to define the Good - Evil axis and where certain acts lie along that spectrum

the problem comes with the Law-Chaos axis and exactly what that entails.

As far as I'm concerned the whole reason that Law-Chaos axis is difficult to define is because those concepts don't apply to a persons motivations and/or behaviour. Not only that but Law and Chaos aren't actually opposites

Chaotic - an abscence of order, disorganisation - opp: Order
Lawful - adherence to an established social Code -opp: Unlawful

and Batman is definately Lawful neutral psychotic (sort of like Tomas Torquemada)

 

[BryonD]

Ah but thats the problem there. Everyone has an understanding and is quite able to define the Good - Evil axis and where certain acts lie along that spectrum

the problem comes with the Law-Chaos axis and exactly what that entails.

As far as I'm concerned the whole reason that Law-Chaos axis is difficult to define is because those concepts don't apply to a persons motivations and/or behaviour. Not only that but Law and Chaos aren't actually opposites

Chaotic - an abscence of order, disorganisation - opp: Order
Lawful - adherence to an established social Code -opp: Unlawful

and Batman is definately Lawful neutral psychotic (sort of like Tomas Torquemada)

Fair enough.

I certainly tend to focus on GvE. For example, I don't have much problem with a paladin and a CG Barbarian working together to stamp out evil. But I do have a hard time seeing the same paladin teaming with a LE necromancer to stamp out a force of chaos. (Not to detour into paladins, I am assuming a "standard" paladin. The uncommon hyper Lawful paladin may be an exception.)

There is certainly a clear distinction between justice and law.

In the BoTR Maal is described as LN "though his laws are perfect and wise and would be thoguht to be 'good' were they the laws of any mortal realm." Though I like BoTR, I found this to be a cheap and unsatisfactory work-around. If there is a perfect set of laws by which true good may be defined, then CG can never really be as good as LG.

This hand waving instantly equates justice with law. Not at all true.

For instance, to move back to the real world, the American justice system is intentionally defined to place law before justice. The concepts of innocent until proven guilty and freedom from double jepardy both tend to thwart justice in the pursuit of what the founding fathers felt was a higher good. So people who commit crimes sometimes go free, (thus thwarting true justice), but a free society is maintained.

By that standard, I can not define Batman as Lawful anything. Batman's attitude (usually) is innocent until I am confident you are guilty. Then I will see that you are punished, either by the legal system, or by me, but you WILL be punished. Law is only imprtant to Batman when it serves justice as he sees it.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I garner from the above posts that everyone has a different view of the nine alignments, and many would prefer to drop alignment in their games.

And yet, the RPGA uses the alignment rules, and the overworked (and they are overworked) RPGA Judge must make alignment calls.
This is because evil alignments are not allowed in the RPGA, and a non-evil character who commits an evil act can be ruled as becoming evil, and thus is relegated to NPC status.
And the Judge must decide the matter.
So, at least for one group of gamers (those in the RPGA) alignment is a very real and important rule, and some strong definitions are in order for each of the nine alignments.

I am curious as to what other people's definitions of the nine alignments are.
That is, could some of you post as I did? Give the nine alignments as you see them?
I appreciate the rebuttals and the opinions given: there are many reasonable points of view expressed there, and a lot of good logic.
Still, I ask: what is your take on each of the nine alignments?

 

[Sir Hawkeye]

My definitions:

Good: seeks to help others. Depending on degree of goodness, will sacrifice self for the good of others. Will not harm others to help self.

Neutral: seeks to help self and avoid harming others. will sometimes sacrifice self to help friends and family. Will sometimes harm others if self-gain is high enough.

Evil: seeks to harm others, and often to help self. Will almost always harm others if self-gain exists. occasionally will sacrifice self to harm others, especially if self-loss is low.

Lawful: Operates on systems and organization, whether internal or external. consistent. often focuses on Group rather than Individual.

Chaotic: Opposes systems and organization, internal and external. Every situation is considered unique. inconsistent. often focuses on Individual rather than group.

Got to go. I'll edit this later for explanation.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

As per Edena's request

Some simple observations from my campaign:
Lawful: duties are more important than individual rights.

Chaotic: individual’s rights are more important than duties.

True Neutral: apathy. If morality exists then it’s probably relative. The philosophy of pure intellectuals and agnostics (with regards to divine powers).

The Nine (as I see ‘em and call ‘em)

Lawful Good
To do good and to see good done is the highest virtue. Order is the best way to do this, because disorder (Chaos) makes all things more possible, including evil. Laws should be made to achieve the maximum good (ideally, for all). The weak should be defended, the hungry fed etc. Laws which deliberately make for unjust or evil outcomes are by definition not good. If the laws which exist do not achieve good, then the laws must be changed. This change should be pursued lawfully where possible, but in extreme circumstances opposition to the current order is permissible.

Lawful Neutral
Order is everything. Good and evil are irrelevant. Only order matters. Sanctions must be developed to enforce order and those sanctions must be applied. The law must be obeyed. In extreme cases, even individuality is unacceptable and “free spirited” thinking is always untrustworthy.

Lawful Evil
Order and society are wonderful, just so long as I’m at the top of the pile. Laws exist to exalt the elite and to keep the sheep in line. Breaking the law should only be done if you can get away with it and of course, chaos is bad for business. Revolutions are all well and good in order to get a throne, but once your on that throne, the systematic application of force to maintain your control (and for your own pleasure) is the reason that laws really exist.

Neutral Good
The greatest good for the greatest number, but good is often different based on the situation. Laws are all well and good but often laws are unresponsive to changing circumstances and take too long to change. Do good, but realise that sometimes you will end up in conflict with the powers that be.

Neutral
Don’t know, don’t care. Morality is so shifting and complicated that it’s pointless to take a stance overall. Deal with each situation as it comes and make decisions on the balance of factors.

Neutral Evil
There is no greater joy than to harm others. To cause suffering and pain in whatever way you can is what life is really about. A persons power and identity is defined in the pain, suffering and control which they can inflict on others.

Chaotic Good
The greatest good is found in freedom, and as such the rights of the individual are paramount. To be free, to follow your heart, these are paths to goodness and happiness. Society does not have the right to way down the individual with excessive rules or duties, because such things stifle freedom.

Chaotic Neutral
If you like how it feels, then it can’t be bad. You don’t really have to care about good and evil if you don’t want to. Just let everyone look out for themselves and enjoy. As long as I’m ok, everything’s fine. I might care about some people, if I want. But I don’t have to and you can’t make me.

Chaotic Evil
Everything should be destroyed and I’m going to destroy it just to watch it burn. I don’t care about the pain caused; suffering can be funny to watch; I don’t care about you or anyone. Hell, I hardly even care about me.


Some examples:
LG
True Communism (the ideal, not Marxism/Leninism);

LN
Marxism/Leninism; Judge Dredd;

LE
Stalinism; Nazism; MacArthyism

NG


N
Stereotype Research Scientist;

NE
Hannibal Lecter

CG
The Declaration of Independence

CN
The Flower Power generation (especially Haight Ashbury);

CE
Soccer hooligans;

 

[CCamfield]

I think the reason alignment can be perceived as restricting is that while character should determine alignment, it's a lot quicker to pick an alignment than develop character (personality). As a result, someone with a not-completely-formed personality formed for their character may let decisions or character be influenced by alignment pick rather than the other way around.

Or the player might have a view of what CG meant, while the GM interprets their acts according to a different view.

The way I'm trying to handle alignment in my campaign (just starting) is to ask the players to rate their characters on more issues, such as Merciful/Cruel (or Neutral in this respect), Honourable/Dishonourable, Authoritarian/Independent, etc. Each "tag" chosen has a value associated with it, towards good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. A balance of tags on an axis indicates neutrality, while a large enough majority indicates an alignment classification.

 

[Squire James]

(Vlad series spoilers ahead... don't go here if you care about such things and have not read the whole series)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
V
I thought it was pretty clear that Vlad's actions while he was an assassin were evil. He might have been on the "upper side" of evil, near the Neutral line, but he was clearly "below the line" at Lawful Evil until he quit the assassin business. After he quit, he obviously crossed the line to True Neutral and has been moving "diagnally up the chart" toward Chaotic Good ever since. By the end of "Issola", he's probably still Neutral but very close to the Chaotic Good line.

Morollan and Aliera are tougher calls, at least after Issola. I always had Morollan pegged at Lawful Evil (who happened to be good to his friends), but the last book has convinced me to give him the benefit of the doubt and make him Lawful Neutral. Aliera is an enigma... my gut feeling is that she's a Lawful Good with a bad temper, a little shaky on both the Lawful and the Good.

I was taking bets that Morollan was secretly Mario, but I've seen enough to say no to that now. My next "sneaky Mario theory" is Kragar, who's probably the only person in the world the Orb wouldn't notice until it was too late...

As for my assessment of other characters in the series: LG for Lady Teldra, NG for Sethra Lavode, CN for Daymar, NE "near the line" for Kragar, and I'd rate Cawti as Neutral (all four alignment components seem to be tugging her about equally). If you need an alignment for Kiera then you haven't read all the books, but I'd considered splitting off the Sethra aspect as LG and the Kiera aspect as CG ("averaging out" to NG).

 

[Squire James]

As for Batman... it depends on who was writing for him at the time. For instance, the 1970's Batman and today's Batman might as well be 2 different people. If I had to come up with a general alignment, I'd say NG (the obsessive Lawful elements and Chaotic crook-chasing behaviors cancelling each other out). He leans toward Lawful, but not enough to qualify for Paladin at any rate (not that he'd want to be one... Charisma isn't one of his 4 scores that started at 18).