Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Some great posts above, especially the post by No One Of Consequence.
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks for the feedback.
The Alignment Wars - my stance in the trenches
- Thread starter Edena_of_Neith
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
No One of Consequences uses definitions quite similar to my own.
Alot of peoples problems with alignment is that they fail to accept how truly complicated the system really is. They can hardly be faulted for that, since D&D has never put much of an emphasis on the system or explaining it despite its ubiquitousness in the mechanics. But, on the whole, despite all its limitations, there is no reason to use the system to create cookie cutter paper thin characters unless that is what you want.
There are somethings that alignment is not.
Edna, my biggest problem with your post was that you seemed to be overlapping the chaos/law axis with Charisma. It was almost as if you were saying, high charisma = lawfulness, and low charisma = chaotic.
Charisma is not alignment, but it does effect how alignment is expressed, and in turn, charisma effects how people percieve alignment. A chaotic evil person with low charisma will probably express himself as a brutish bully. A chaotic evil person with high charisma will probably express himself as a charming rake. Because both individuals are choatic evil, they will have a natural respect for each other. The rake sees the bully has honest to his nature (the only kind of honesty worth respecting) and brave for expressing himself naturally. The bully looks up to the rake as a sophisticated personality, and admires his ability to get other people to do what he wants them to do. A lawful good sees both as enherently detestable people, and the rakes high charisma only serves to make him seem more detestable, frightening, and unnatural.
Conversely, a lawful good person of low charisma might express himself as crude, strict moralist, prone to harsh criticism, self-righteous comments, giving unwanted advice, and shouting at people whose behavior he finds reprehensible. To the chaotics, he probably appears evil, no matter what his intentions, and no matter how charitable he might be in a crisis. To a lawful, he probably just appears misguided. A lawful good of high charisma is the sort of person who always manages to seem like a loving and devoted friend, no matter what your relation to them. An interesting story could revolve around the relationship of a high charisma CE with a high charisma LG and how thier 'friendship' might ultimately degenerate.
Intelligence is not alignment, but it does effect how alignment is expressed. The more intelligent a character, the more sophisticated thier alignment principals. A low intelligance neutral is probably an apathetic survival minded person who has never even really considered questions of morality. He has no moral stand on anything. But a high intelligance neutral is unlikely to have not considered questions of morality closely. A high intelligence neutral probably believes in a philosophy of balance and harmony, something like the Greek 'golden mean' or some of the Hindu paths. Life he believes should be experienced in its complexity, and not merely a peice of it. Too much focus on good and evil, is to him like a man who eats only candy, or who is addicted to alchohol. Too much of a good thing, he says.
Both neutrals respect each other more than an examinatino of their mutual charisma alone would suggest. The high intelligence neutral finds the neutral simpleton's way of living to be admirable in its simplicity. He probably has great respect for primitive cultures which he believes to be in a 'natural balance'. The low intelligence nuetral admires that the high intelligence neutral is pragmatic and not to his opinion overly intellectual or pretentious. He probably esteems his intelligence above those of other people with to his mind strange beliefs about life.
The same is true for every alignment, and intelligent people of any alignment can have philosophies that are expressed differently from other intelligent people of the same alignment. A chaotic neutral of low intelligence simply does his own thing no matter what anyone else thinks. A chaotic neutral of high intelligence might be a Bohemian, a Hedonist, or a Existentialist. He might even believe in some comparatively high minded philosophy wherein everyone (not only himself) had a right to do thier own thing, and oppose those that 'oppressed' anyone (and not just himself). Or, he might be a delusional skitzophearnic, whose beliefs cause him to live within his own bizarre, albiet quite harmless world.
Both the beat cop and the hitman can be lawful neutral, each with a duty to a particular agency and a particular code of honor. If they do, although they are enemies, they probably have a certain degree of respect for each other, and a mutual loathing for the chaotic neutral thief who has no honor that either can respect.
Wisdom is not alignmentment but it does effect how alignment is expressed. The higher the characters wisdom, the more closely he actually adheres to the set of beliefs he holds. This set of beliefs does not have to be the one he professes (he can deceitfully disguise his beliefs for some reason). A character with low wisdom believes something, but seldom is able to hold to his beliefs. Either he lacks the will to continue with his beliefs when tempted to stray, or he lacks the discernment to judge 'good' and 'evil' according to his own standards and often does something that is actually the opposite of what he should have done - all the while believing that what he is doing is the 'right thing to do'. A truly low wisdom character may not even know what his real alignment is. He could be a chaotic evil inquisitor who sincerely beleives that he is following the path of righteousness and professes every good thing. He could be street thief with a heart of gold. Morality is a confusing cloud to the low wisdom person, and if good hearted, he probably finds himself in need of contrite atonement quite frequently. A low wisdom person might not even be able to judge thier own heart.
A person of differing alignment (or low wisdom) percieving another low wisdom character generally misjudges thier alignment. They might percieve the chaotic evil inquisitor as the true representation of lawful good, or the golden hearted thief as the true representation of chaotic evil. They might percieve another person with quite different alignment as having the same beliefs as they do. Alot of Victorian/Edwardian stories can be read as concerning several characters misjudging each others alignments - usually against the advice of some other wiser but less charismatic character. Thus, a low wisdom lawful good might percieve a chaotic rouge as a charming and noble hero.
In general, two people of the same or similar alignment (assuming at least average wisdom) will recognize each other, despite the incongruties in behavior. The high wisdom character sees in himself the struggles to achieve a goal in the lower wisdom character, and is sympathetic (albiet frequently frustrated). The low wisdom character probably percieves the higher widsom characters as perfect and fails to note his many failings. He might either resent or admire this (or both). However, while this is the usual case, the aberational cases where they don't recognize each other keep things interesting like the Paladin failing to realize that the Inquisitor is a vile deluded self-centered arrogant man until too late. Or maybe even more interestingly, a honorable and just Inquisitor failing to realize that the Paladin providing the evidence is a Blackguard until it is too late.
And as I've hinted, even two characters of the same alignment, same wisdom, same charisma, and same intelligence could be quite different despite all they have in common. Personality and profession and social station play a big roles in shaping who people are and what they believe. Chastity is normally associated with lawfulness (or goodness if you are of a lawful group that upholds chastity), but it is not an inherent aspect of lawfulness. There is nothing that prevents a lawful from being permiscious if that lawful's social station and social code permit it (perhaps a nobleman in a chauvanistic society or a trained courtesan), and there is nothing that prevents a chaotic from being chaste (other than thier own personality). However, each person's behavior would be motivated by entirely different beliefs. A chaste lawful is chaste (whether they admit it or not) because thier social codes forbids sexual interactions. A chaste chaotic cares not a bit for social codes, but could be chaste out of respect for thier own body or out of a belief that no one is good enough for them or out of narcicism or out of belief that he or she can better use thier sexuality as a weapon if they only tease and never give in. A chaste lawful's behavior might change if thier social code (like a reformation of church doctrine) or situation (like marriage or rank) changes (though all lawfuls resist change in social code). A chaste chaotics code will remain the same regardless of social code or standing, but might change in respond to changes in personal situation (that is it become clearly more advantageous to give up chastity).
To further complicate things, even if you don't believe that morality is relative, how people will define moral terms IS relative. Thus, when a lawful evil person says the word 'good' and a chaotic good person says 'good' they mean entirely different things. It is possible that both believe that they are 'good people', and in fact that is the usual situation. It is rare that a evil person recognizes his beliefs as evil and celebrates them (though this is possible too), and I've even met people that celebrate thier own beliefs as 'evil' even though they aren't (in which case they claim to be evil but are celebrating good as often as not). Of course the situation can get complicated by the fact that people may rightly or wrongly lump some subset of thier beliefs together under the same ruberic of 'good' or 'evil' even though upon examination the category contains a pretty diverse set of beliefs. This is particularly easy to see with sexual behavior, where every sort of perversity, proclavity, and simple preference can all get lumped together as 'good' or 'evil' largely because of historical 'lawful' definitions. A quick examination finds some pretty tame and harmless behavior lumped together with some really vile stuff by both sides of the debate, as if there was no difference between say rape and a married couple just being playful. (I don't really want to be graphic, just provoke some thoughts in those that want to consider the question. However, I find it amusing what the designers of Online Purity Tests consider to cause the loss of equal amounts of 'purity' and often wonder with less amusement whether that is a real reflection of the beliefs of our society.)
I don't believe that the alignment system reflects the real world. I don't believe that there is a law/chaos moral axis. Things are either good or they are not, and those things which are not in opposition to good are good. That's my belief, but I do find it interesting how often I find that the dual axis system can be used to describe simply some very complex things. For instance, while I see no moral difference - at least no inherent moral difference - between the communist and the capitalist, between the stoic and the epicurian, or between the agnostic and the fundamentalist, it is possible to describe the philosophies at least in brief by adding additional axi. The law/chaos axis can be used to represent the group/individual, or as NOOC put it, the responsibilities/rights axis, and a variaty of other rather common related ways of perceiving the world ethicly.
I've never really understood why people find the rather vaguely defined Alignment system constraining. I suppose some people object to it on moral grounds because they don't believe absolutes exist, or because they find anything remotely like a 'system' too biased towards a lawful universe. I suppose there are a variaty of definitions out there that turn out to be rather unworkable. I suppose there are in the real world people having one alignment code that prefer to believe that they have another, and thus object when someone claims thier behavior belongs in a different category than the one that they would like to claim. I find most players, not suprisingly, play thier characters with little real concern for the moral implications of thier actions. For one thing, it is hard to be too concerned with the moral implications of an imaginary action by an imaginary character. For another, most real people have little real concern for the moral implications of thier actions. I generally advise most people who object to the alignment system to play neutrals, since I find that that is what they are going to end up playing anyway.
Alot of peoples problems with alignment is that they fail to accept how truly complicated the system really is. They can hardly be faulted for that, since D&D has never put much of an emphasis on the system or explaining it despite its ubiquitousness in the mechanics. But, on the whole, despite all its limitations, there is no reason to use the system to create cookie cutter paper thin characters unless that is what you want.
There are somethings that alignment is not.
Edna, my biggest problem with your post was that you seemed to be overlapping the chaos/law axis with Charisma. It was almost as if you were saying, high charisma = lawfulness, and low charisma = chaotic.
Charisma is not alignment, but it does effect how alignment is expressed, and in turn, charisma effects how people percieve alignment. A chaotic evil person with low charisma will probably express himself as a brutish bully. A chaotic evil person with high charisma will probably express himself as a charming rake. Because both individuals are choatic evil, they will have a natural respect for each other. The rake sees the bully has honest to his nature (the only kind of honesty worth respecting) and brave for expressing himself naturally. The bully looks up to the rake as a sophisticated personality, and admires his ability to get other people to do what he wants them to do. A lawful good sees both as enherently detestable people, and the rakes high charisma only serves to make him seem more detestable, frightening, and unnatural.
Conversely, a lawful good person of low charisma might express himself as crude, strict moralist, prone to harsh criticism, self-righteous comments, giving unwanted advice, and shouting at people whose behavior he finds reprehensible. To the chaotics, he probably appears evil, no matter what his intentions, and no matter how charitable he might be in a crisis. To a lawful, he probably just appears misguided. A lawful good of high charisma is the sort of person who always manages to seem like a loving and devoted friend, no matter what your relation to them. An interesting story could revolve around the relationship of a high charisma CE with a high charisma LG and how thier 'friendship' might ultimately degenerate.
Intelligence is not alignment, but it does effect how alignment is expressed. The more intelligent a character, the more sophisticated thier alignment principals. A low intelligance neutral is probably an apathetic survival minded person who has never even really considered questions of morality. He has no moral stand on anything. But a high intelligance neutral is unlikely to have not considered questions of morality closely. A high intelligence neutral probably believes in a philosophy of balance and harmony, something like the Greek 'golden mean' or some of the Hindu paths. Life he believes should be experienced in its complexity, and not merely a peice of it. Too much focus on good and evil, is to him like a man who eats only candy, or who is addicted to alchohol. Too much of a good thing, he says.
Both neutrals respect each other more than an examinatino of their mutual charisma alone would suggest. The high intelligence neutral finds the neutral simpleton's way of living to be admirable in its simplicity. He probably has great respect for primitive cultures which he believes to be in a 'natural balance'. The low intelligence nuetral admires that the high intelligence neutral is pragmatic and not to his opinion overly intellectual or pretentious. He probably esteems his intelligence above those of other people with to his mind strange beliefs about life.
The same is true for every alignment, and intelligent people of any alignment can have philosophies that are expressed differently from other intelligent people of the same alignment. A chaotic neutral of low intelligence simply does his own thing no matter what anyone else thinks. A chaotic neutral of high intelligence might be a Bohemian, a Hedonist, or a Existentialist. He might even believe in some comparatively high minded philosophy wherein everyone (not only himself) had a right to do thier own thing, and oppose those that 'oppressed' anyone (and not just himself). Or, he might be a delusional skitzophearnic, whose beliefs cause him to live within his own bizarre, albiet quite harmless world.
Both the beat cop and the hitman can be lawful neutral, each with a duty to a particular agency and a particular code of honor. If they do, although they are enemies, they probably have a certain degree of respect for each other, and a mutual loathing for the chaotic neutral thief who has no honor that either can respect.
Wisdom is not alignmentment but it does effect how alignment is expressed. The higher the characters wisdom, the more closely he actually adheres to the set of beliefs he holds. This set of beliefs does not have to be the one he professes (he can deceitfully disguise his beliefs for some reason). A character with low wisdom believes something, but seldom is able to hold to his beliefs. Either he lacks the will to continue with his beliefs when tempted to stray, or he lacks the discernment to judge 'good' and 'evil' according to his own standards and often does something that is actually the opposite of what he should have done - all the while believing that what he is doing is the 'right thing to do'. A truly low wisdom character may not even know what his real alignment is. He could be a chaotic evil inquisitor who sincerely beleives that he is following the path of righteousness and professes every good thing. He could be street thief with a heart of gold. Morality is a confusing cloud to the low wisdom person, and if good hearted, he probably finds himself in need of contrite atonement quite frequently. A low wisdom person might not even be able to judge thier own heart.
A person of differing alignment (or low wisdom) percieving another low wisdom character generally misjudges thier alignment. They might percieve the chaotic evil inquisitor as the true representation of lawful good, or the golden hearted thief as the true representation of chaotic evil. They might percieve another person with quite different alignment as having the same beliefs as they do. Alot of Victorian/Edwardian stories can be read as concerning several characters misjudging each others alignments - usually against the advice of some other wiser but less charismatic character. Thus, a low wisdom lawful good might percieve a chaotic rouge as a charming and noble hero.
In general, two people of the same or similar alignment (assuming at least average wisdom) will recognize each other, despite the incongruties in behavior. The high wisdom character sees in himself the struggles to achieve a goal in the lower wisdom character, and is sympathetic (albiet frequently frustrated). The low wisdom character probably percieves the higher widsom characters as perfect and fails to note his many failings. He might either resent or admire this (or both). However, while this is the usual case, the aberational cases where they don't recognize each other keep things interesting like the Paladin failing to realize that the Inquisitor is a vile deluded self-centered arrogant man until too late. Or maybe even more interestingly, a honorable and just Inquisitor failing to realize that the Paladin providing the evidence is a Blackguard until it is too late.
And as I've hinted, even two characters of the same alignment, same wisdom, same charisma, and same intelligence could be quite different despite all they have in common. Personality and profession and social station play a big roles in shaping who people are and what they believe. Chastity is normally associated with lawfulness (or goodness if you are of a lawful group that upholds chastity), but it is not an inherent aspect of lawfulness. There is nothing that prevents a lawful from being permiscious if that lawful's social station and social code permit it (perhaps a nobleman in a chauvanistic society or a trained courtesan), and there is nothing that prevents a chaotic from being chaste (other than thier own personality). However, each person's behavior would be motivated by entirely different beliefs. A chaste lawful is chaste (whether they admit it or not) because thier social codes forbids sexual interactions. A chaste chaotic cares not a bit for social codes, but could be chaste out of respect for thier own body or out of a belief that no one is good enough for them or out of narcicism or out of belief that he or she can better use thier sexuality as a weapon if they only tease and never give in. A chaste lawful's behavior might change if thier social code (like a reformation of church doctrine) or situation (like marriage or rank) changes (though all lawfuls resist change in social code). A chaste chaotics code will remain the same regardless of social code or standing, but might change in respond to changes in personal situation (that is it become clearly more advantageous to give up chastity).
To further complicate things, even if you don't believe that morality is relative, how people will define moral terms IS relative. Thus, when a lawful evil person says the word 'good' and a chaotic good person says 'good' they mean entirely different things. It is possible that both believe that they are 'good people', and in fact that is the usual situation. It is rare that a evil person recognizes his beliefs as evil and celebrates them (though this is possible too), and I've even met people that celebrate thier own beliefs as 'evil' even though they aren't (in which case they claim to be evil but are celebrating good as often as not). Of course the situation can get complicated by the fact that people may rightly or wrongly lump some subset of thier beliefs together under the same ruberic of 'good' or 'evil' even though upon examination the category contains a pretty diverse set of beliefs. This is particularly easy to see with sexual behavior, where every sort of perversity, proclavity, and simple preference can all get lumped together as 'good' or 'evil' largely because of historical 'lawful' definitions. A quick examination finds some pretty tame and harmless behavior lumped together with some really vile stuff by both sides of the debate, as if there was no difference between say rape and a married couple just being playful. (I don't really want to be graphic, just provoke some thoughts in those that want to consider the question. However, I find it amusing what the designers of Online Purity Tests consider to cause the loss of equal amounts of 'purity' and often wonder with less amusement whether that is a real reflection of the beliefs of our society.)
I don't believe that the alignment system reflects the real world. I don't believe that there is a law/chaos moral axis. Things are either good or they are not, and those things which are not in opposition to good are good. That's my belief, but I do find it interesting how often I find that the dual axis system can be used to describe simply some very complex things. For instance, while I see no moral difference - at least no inherent moral difference - between the communist and the capitalist, between the stoic and the epicurian, or between the agnostic and the fundamentalist, it is possible to describe the philosophies at least in brief by adding additional axi. The law/chaos axis can be used to represent the group/individual, or as NOOC put it, the responsibilities/rights axis, and a variaty of other rather common related ways of perceiving the world ethicly.
I've never really understood why people find the rather vaguely defined Alignment system constraining. I suppose some people object to it on moral grounds because they don't believe absolutes exist, or because they find anything remotely like a 'system' too biased towards a lawful universe. I suppose there are a variaty of definitions out there that turn out to be rather unworkable. I suppose there are in the real world people having one alignment code that prefer to believe that they have another, and thus object when someone claims thier behavior belongs in a different category than the one that they would like to claim. I find most players, not suprisingly, play thier characters with little real concern for the moral implications of thier actions. For one thing, it is hard to be too concerned with the moral implications of an imaginary action by an imaginary character. For another, most real people have little real concern for the moral implications of thier actions. I generally advise most people who object to the alignment system to play neutrals, since I find that that is what they are going to end up playing anyway.
Last edited:
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
I wasn't going to bump this, but I thought Celebrim's article deserved to be brought to attention (that is, to have a chance to be read.)
Celebrim put a lot of time and effort in his post.
Celebrim put a lot of time and effort in his post.
zouron
First Post
okay I am from a different school when it comes to alignment especially concerning lawful and chaotic (good evil is pretty clear overall to most it seems ;-) ).
To me lawful has nothing at all to do with law, order or similar, rather it regards to a way of thoughtss concerning others, a lawful person thinks of the group rather then himself, while a chaotic person thinks of himself first. Finally those neither lawful or chaotic doesn't show a first concern for others or for herself.
Lawful Good
Thinks of the better of the group, trying to do good often disregarding own needs to make sure others needs are furfilled.
Chaotic Good
Concerns greatly with personal well being, mood and desire, but will not take advantage of others for morale reasons. Chaotic Good people are often very focused on personal freedom.
Neutral Good
Neutral Good people thinks of the better of the group to a degree and are willing to sacrifies themself to a degree just to make others happy, however they are not willing to give up some personal freedom just like a chaotic good character, on the other hand it is important to pick up the weak in society as well.
Lawful Neutral
These people totally and utterly devote themself to the group needs disregarding their own desires completely, they are strongly motivated by what they must do and have to do, it is not a chore to serve the group but rather an honor.
Chaotic Neutral
A chaotic neutral person totally disregard the need of the group but rather focus on her own 'tuff, however unlike evil people a chaotic neutral person take no pleasure in the suffering of others and doesn't prefere methods that are evil, mostly chaotic neutral people are very self reliant and/or lack the ability to have any insight in other people's emotion and feelings.
(True) Neutral
A neutral character is in the middle of the range of alignment, and the exact behaviour often depends greatly on intelligence and culture, animals and other none intelligent creatures has no ability to discern good or evil.
Intelligent beings that are neutral however are a different matter, these people like their personal space, not nessecary on the expense of others, they also like to things for the general good of it and see the point in not ahving evil, however they probably cannot stomach too much goodness and have some unsharp edges and questionable motives lacking the udnerstanding for other people.
Lawful Evil
This evil person is very focused on duty of the group, however their choice of group will usually be one that are diabolic or twisted, they prefere as far as possible to do what they are suppose to, and uses the feeling of others sense of duty to their advantage to gain a better position, making life easier for themselves. Lawful Evil are often ruthless and takes great pleasure in tasks that makes life unpleasent for others.
Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Evil are individualists that wouldn't have other decide their faith nor will they want to be held accountable for duties that doesn't benefit them. They have little sense of duty and no regard for other people's feeling life or anything else that doesn't benefit themselves. Chaotic evil personas that are part of a group are often a weak link for their lacking sense of duty, disorder and slacking is very common around them, unless it can great them great power (and thus make their life less miserable) they are not really devoted to group orientated tasks.
Chaotic Evil characters are extremely self centered often believing that life is all about them and that it is unjustily harsh against them, they see little reason to treat life nicely in return.
Neutral Evil
Neutral evil characters often has a strong sense of duty just like the lawful evil person, but their sense of duty isn't to the group but themselves, however they see the group as an effective tool and will use it (and loss it when it has served its purpose), unlike other evil alignment neutral evil people have a great understanding of the motivation and emotions of other people and will use this to gain the upper hand for their own twisted purpose. The combination of understanding the groups function and being able to use it as well as total disregard for the group is a very dangerous combination, these individuals are very unpredictable.
so that is my stance
and I like alignments
edena you meantioned one IR character and their alignment, why don't you mention the rest ;-) it could be intersting to see what everyone played in YOUR opinion.
To me lawful has nothing at all to do with law, order or similar, rather it regards to a way of thoughtss concerning others, a lawful person thinks of the group rather then himself, while a chaotic person thinks of himself first. Finally those neither lawful or chaotic doesn't show a first concern for others or for herself.
Lawful Good
Thinks of the better of the group, trying to do good often disregarding own needs to make sure others needs are furfilled.
Chaotic Good
Concerns greatly with personal well being, mood and desire, but will not take advantage of others for morale reasons. Chaotic Good people are often very focused on personal freedom.
Neutral Good
Neutral Good people thinks of the better of the group to a degree and are willing to sacrifies themself to a degree just to make others happy, however they are not willing to give up some personal freedom just like a chaotic good character, on the other hand it is important to pick up the weak in society as well.
Lawful Neutral
These people totally and utterly devote themself to the group needs disregarding their own desires completely, they are strongly motivated by what they must do and have to do, it is not a chore to serve the group but rather an honor.
Chaotic Neutral
A chaotic neutral person totally disregard the need of the group but rather focus on her own 'tuff, however unlike evil people a chaotic neutral person take no pleasure in the suffering of others and doesn't prefere methods that are evil, mostly chaotic neutral people are very self reliant and/or lack the ability to have any insight in other people's emotion and feelings.
(True) Neutral
A neutral character is in the middle of the range of alignment, and the exact behaviour often depends greatly on intelligence and culture, animals and other none intelligent creatures has no ability to discern good or evil.
Intelligent beings that are neutral however are a different matter, these people like their personal space, not nessecary on the expense of others, they also like to things for the general good of it and see the point in not ahving evil, however they probably cannot stomach too much goodness and have some unsharp edges and questionable motives lacking the udnerstanding for other people.
Lawful Evil
This evil person is very focused on duty of the group, however their choice of group will usually be one that are diabolic or twisted, they prefere as far as possible to do what they are suppose to, and uses the feeling of others sense of duty to their advantage to gain a better position, making life easier for themselves. Lawful Evil are often ruthless and takes great pleasure in tasks that makes life unpleasent for others.
Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Evil are individualists that wouldn't have other decide their faith nor will they want to be held accountable for duties that doesn't benefit them. They have little sense of duty and no regard for other people's feeling life or anything else that doesn't benefit themselves. Chaotic evil personas that are part of a group are often a weak link for their lacking sense of duty, disorder and slacking is very common around them, unless it can great them great power (and thus make their life less miserable) they are not really devoted to group orientated tasks.
Chaotic Evil characters are extremely self centered often believing that life is all about them and that it is unjustily harsh against them, they see little reason to treat life nicely in return.
Neutral Evil
Neutral evil characters often has a strong sense of duty just like the lawful evil person, but their sense of duty isn't to the group but themselves, however they see the group as an effective tool and will use it (and loss it when it has served its purpose), unlike other evil alignment neutral evil people have a great understanding of the motivation and emotions of other people and will use this to gain the upper hand for their own twisted purpose. The combination of understanding the groups function and being able to use it as well as total disregard for the group is a very dangerous combination, these individuals are very unpredictable.
so that is my stance
and I like alignments edena you meantioned one IR character and their alignment, why don't you mention the rest ;-) it could be intersting to see what everyone played in YOUR opinion.
AngelTears
First Post
Apok said:
I hate to sounds like a "me too", but I have strong dislike towards the alignment system as well.
My stance is that it leads to a monochromatic perseption of the game world, withdrawing characters from its suspension of disbelief. I also dislike having a game mechanic dictate constant behaviour of a character, it again withtracts from a possible better roleplaying experience.
-Angel Tears
MonkeyBoy
First Post
In all cases I consider declaring yourself for one of the 4 axes of alignment
to be a declaration of "dogma"; you believe in the correctness of this axiom,
and will argue for it, deny arguments against it, and if need be, fight for it.
By extension, not declaring (i.e. being neutral on an axis) is a declaration of
NOT being dogmatic; you are therefore more likely to be persuaded on the subject,
and to view individual situations on their merits, rather than apply your own
beliefs to everything.
I also use a system where (optionally) a character can be assigned a weak and
a strong element to their alignment; for instance an lG character emphasises the
Good over the Law in their alignment...
As an aside; I do not consider "chaotic" cahracters to be anarchists. To my mind expecting to
be able to live to your own code of rules and yours alone is the ultimate in chaotic thought,
lawfulness is a willingness to work within the constraints of the population's expectations, not
just your own. (think about it; if a monk can be lawful following their own personal code, why
can a paladin not be lawful following their own personal code?)
LG
Has a clear vision of what is good and right, is intollerant of those who willingly don't do what is good and right; will fight for what is good and right. Generally will see no distinction between "correct" and "good". Will face crises of concience if confronted with legitimate but malignant authority. (will, essentially, have to decide whether they are Lg or lG)
NG
Probably has a more instinctive view of what is good, and is somewhat less concerned with what is right. Inclined to clearly favour what they believe to be good above what others percieve to be right, but not totally beligerant about it. Will be more interested in general welfare of people than the LG character. (this is, in effect, bland-good or tractable good.)
CG
Has an even more instinctual view of good and evil thatn the NG. I usually define this alignment in terms of "do as you would be done by" - The CG character values other people's freedom and wellbeing because they also value their own. The CG character is unlikely to attempt to enforce their will on others. They may make effective leaders, but probably make reluctant rulers...
LN
Obviously this is a belief in correctness, unfettered by a view on good or evil. It can be quite an apathetic alignment; a rulebook and a disinterest in the "goodness" of the rules therin could be used as an excuse not to consider your actions' consequences. In general this alignment is conformist, and expects others to be so. LN should be like LG, just without the moral outlook.
N
I always view this alignment as being 2 alignments in reality. First is the great balancing act; not too much of anything, otherwise it all goes wrong. Second is the disinterested "blank slate". I'll be honest; I find this alignment somewhat incomprehensible, and a bit dull.
CN
This is the alignment I always get into arguments with players about. This alignment is centered about a wish to be free to express itself and to determine its own fate, unlike CG it is less fettered with a wish to allow others to do the same, so it is a little selfish. Essentially, given the choice between satisfying its own desires, or helping another to satisfy their needs, CG will generally choose the latter, because it is Good to do so. CN will have a bit more of a choice to make...
LE
LE is the evil that doesn't want to get caught. (i.e. wants to at least appear to work within the confines fo society's expectations) LE is generally to be expected to use the rules of
society simultaneously to facilitate, hide and defend its activities. LE can also be seen in the villain who goes about their deeds because they are denied their rights / due; a more driven and goal-oriented evil than the others.
NE
As planescape once mentioned; this is "Pure Evil", evil for its own sake. This is where I categorise sociopathic type villains; serial killers etc who do evil purely because of the satisfaction the acts alone give them. I also use this as "default evil" when there is no clear reason that something should be chaotic or lawful, but is clearly evil. Its also the alignment of being evil because the character doesn't know any other way.
CE
This is the alignment of the despot and tyrant. CE is actually quite like both CG and CN, except removing all consideration for the wellbeing or freedom of others. A CE character will readily sacrifice others for their own convenience, and will readily construct plans which openly involve loss or harm to others in the process of achieving their goal. CE also believes that might makes right, and a motivator for this alignment is the ability to express themselves in terms of their power over others.
In contrast to LE, this power will need to be overt for the CE character to enjoy it.
I'm reminded of a phrase from George Orwell's 1984 whenever I consider what CE is (or evil in general, but the simplistic view makes me think particularly of CE), to paraphrase;
"The only way you can know you have power, is to use that power to oppress someone else"
to be a declaration of "dogma"; you believe in the correctness of this axiom,
and will argue for it, deny arguments against it, and if need be, fight for it.
By extension, not declaring (i.e. being neutral on an axis) is a declaration of
NOT being dogmatic; you are therefore more likely to be persuaded on the subject,
and to view individual situations on their merits, rather than apply your own
beliefs to everything.
I also use a system where (optionally) a character can be assigned a weak and
a strong element to their alignment; for instance an lG character emphasises the
Good over the Law in their alignment...
As an aside; I do not consider "chaotic" cahracters to be anarchists. To my mind expecting to
be able to live to your own code of rules and yours alone is the ultimate in chaotic thought,
lawfulness is a willingness to work within the constraints of the population's expectations, not
just your own. (think about it; if a monk can be lawful following their own personal code, why
can a paladin not be lawful following their own personal code?)
LG
Has a clear vision of what is good and right, is intollerant of those who willingly don't do what is good and right; will fight for what is good and right. Generally will see no distinction between "correct" and "good". Will face crises of concience if confronted with legitimate but malignant authority. (will, essentially, have to decide whether they are Lg or lG)
NG
Probably has a more instinctive view of what is good, and is somewhat less concerned with what is right. Inclined to clearly favour what they believe to be good above what others percieve to be right, but not totally beligerant about it. Will be more interested in general welfare of people than the LG character. (this is, in effect, bland-good or tractable good.)
CG
Has an even more instinctual view of good and evil thatn the NG. I usually define this alignment in terms of "do as you would be done by" - The CG character values other people's freedom and wellbeing because they also value their own. The CG character is unlikely to attempt to enforce their will on others. They may make effective leaders, but probably make reluctant rulers...
LN
Obviously this is a belief in correctness, unfettered by a view on good or evil. It can be quite an apathetic alignment; a rulebook and a disinterest in the "goodness" of the rules therin could be used as an excuse not to consider your actions' consequences. In general this alignment is conformist, and expects others to be so. LN should be like LG, just without the moral outlook.
N
I always view this alignment as being 2 alignments in reality. First is the great balancing act; not too much of anything, otherwise it all goes wrong. Second is the disinterested "blank slate". I'll be honest; I find this alignment somewhat incomprehensible, and a bit dull.
CN
This is the alignment I always get into arguments with players about. This alignment is centered about a wish to be free to express itself and to determine its own fate, unlike CG it is less fettered with a wish to allow others to do the same, so it is a little selfish. Essentially, given the choice between satisfying its own desires, or helping another to satisfy their needs, CG will generally choose the latter, because it is Good to do so. CN will have a bit more of a choice to make...
LE
LE is the evil that doesn't want to get caught. (i.e. wants to at least appear to work within the confines fo society's expectations) LE is generally to be expected to use the rules of
society simultaneously to facilitate, hide and defend its activities. LE can also be seen in the villain who goes about their deeds because they are denied their rights / due; a more driven and goal-oriented evil than the others.
NE
As planescape once mentioned; this is "Pure Evil", evil for its own sake. This is where I categorise sociopathic type villains; serial killers etc who do evil purely because of the satisfaction the acts alone give them. I also use this as "default evil" when there is no clear reason that something should be chaotic or lawful, but is clearly evil. Its also the alignment of being evil because the character doesn't know any other way.
CE
This is the alignment of the despot and tyrant. CE is actually quite like both CG and CN, except removing all consideration for the wellbeing or freedom of others. A CE character will readily sacrifice others for their own convenience, and will readily construct plans which openly involve loss or harm to others in the process of achieving their goal. CE also believes that might makes right, and a motivator for this alignment is the ability to express themselves in terms of their power over others.
In contrast to LE, this power will need to be overt for the CE character to enjoy it.
I'm reminded of a phrase from George Orwell's 1984 whenever I consider what CE is (or evil in general, but the simplistic view makes me think particularly of CE), to paraphrase;
"The only way you can know you have power, is to use that power to oppress someone else"
LoneWolf23
First Post
I've posted my Alignment opinions before, and here I go again...
Batman: Batman, as he stands in the comics these days, is clearly Neutral Good. While he's very disciplined, that discipline is ultimatly a means to an end. And that end is saving Lives. Not fighting crime, or bringing criminals to justice, but Saving Lives. That makes Batman Good, not Neutral. Regarding the Law/Chaos axis, however, Batman is definetly Neutral. While he works in cooperation with the Gotham PD, he doesn't answer to the Police, or even work according to legal procedures.
Regarding the Law-Chaos axis... I've always considered DC's Green Arrow (a real bleeding-heart liberal) to be a Chaotic Good character, and the Silver Age Hawkman (a die-hard Conservative) to be a Lawful Good character. In that vein, perhaps one could see Chaos as being more Liberal, and Lawful as more Conservative.
Batman: Batman, as he stands in the comics these days, is clearly Neutral Good. While he's very disciplined, that discipline is ultimatly a means to an end. And that end is saving Lives. Not fighting crime, or bringing criminals to justice, but Saving Lives. That makes Batman Good, not Neutral. Regarding the Law/Chaos axis, however, Batman is definetly Neutral. While he works in cooperation with the Gotham PD, he doesn't answer to the Police, or even work according to legal procedures.
Regarding the Law-Chaos axis... I've always considered DC's Green Arrow (a real bleeding-heart liberal) to be a Chaotic Good character, and the Silver Age Hawkman (a die-hard Conservative) to be a Lawful Good character. In that vein, perhaps one could see Chaos as being more Liberal, and Lawful as more Conservative.
Similar Threads
