Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: Chaotic Neutral is the Worst
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7817762" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Nod. I remember noting that back in the day with regard to True Neutrals like Druids being actively concerned with maintaining the balance, vs animal-intelligence neutrals acting on instinct, or neutral, say, thieves, acting on unexamined self interest.</p><p></p><p>4e's Unaligned, would have stood well as an alternative to the classic balance-oriented True Neutral. But it never did.</p><p></p><p> You're not wrong.</p><p> This thread has me thinking about different approaches to alignment, again.</p><p></p><p><strong>Alignment As Personality</strong>: Seems to me like the bulk of the discussion in this thread has been this approach. If you're Chaotic or Evil, you have a personality disorder, if you're good, you're saintly, if you're lawful you're OCD, would be a flippant way of putting it.</p><p></p><p><strong>Alignment As Palpable Supernatural Force</strong>: D&D with it's alignment-sorted outer planes, alignment restrictions, alignment detection and things doing damage to you based on our alignment, sure seems to lean in that direction. Perhaps, peaking in 3e, with the whole Team Alignment thing, where every alignment domain go a suite of similar screw-other-alignments spells. In choosing an alignment, you are literally /aligning/ yourself with a cosmological force and it's divine (and other) personifications, in a way about as ambiguous as a particle having a positive or negative charge. Let your moral or ethical wheel get out of alignment and <em><strong>ZAP</strong>!</em></p><p></p><p><strong>Alignment As Philosophy</strong>: This one I'd like to go into, because, well, I feel like it's hasn't been belabored too much yet this time around. The old 'alignment language' concept and the fact you can choose or change alignments seems somewhat consistent with this approach, but I guess it's probably the least-solidly-D&D of the three (though, maybe there's a 4th & 5th to be enumerated?)</p><p>In this approach, I want to look at alignment as ideas people consciously subscribe to and try to live by. Furthermore, I'm going to go ahead and assume these ideas are primarily about /how you deal with others/ (other intelligent beings, mainly), not who you are or how you feel.</p><p></p><p><em>Good</em>: Should be the easiest, and the thorniest, at the same time. When dealing with others you should try to aid, support, or at least respect their happiness and well-being. Of course, that's hard. You may dislike someone, they may have been cruel to you, there may be resentments, broader social forces, and pragmatic obstacles in your way, and you may have to go very much against your own impulses or even your own best interest. And, there are so many situations in which accomplishing good from one perspective might mean disregarding it for another. Good as a philosophical alignment would, I suspect, not go for that. Sometimes there'll be catch-22's where there's no clear Good choice of action, including inaction. Good doesn't say that the universe is Good, just that you should try to be. Again, it's hard.</p><p></p><p><em>Lawful</em>: You base your dealings with others on your membership in a group or groups and your position within those groups relative to the memberships & positions of others. Depending on your group memberships, that may mean adhering to strict, codified, literal laws - or not, it might mean a very simple, general or intuitive set of expectations, like 'my Clan, right or wrong' or 'the only good orc is a dead orc." Obviously, that's hard. You must constantly put aside your personal feelings to do what's expected of you. You may hate someone for very good reasons, but, if they're later initiated into your Order, they become a brother, and you're obligated to side with them, work with them, and respect them. Period.</p><p></p><p><em>Chaotic</em>: You deal with others solely as individuals. Each new individual you meet has a clean slate. It doesn't matter if you're an elf and he's an orc and orcs killed your family - obviously, it matters, but you still have to judge each orc as an individual. When they're actively trying to kill you, that's easy, of course, they're treating you as they wish you to treat them. The rest of the time, it's hard. You have to guard against preconceptions, against unthinking self-interest, against, really, the basic human (or humanoid, perhaps) need for belonging, because belonging to a group usually demands judging others from the perspective of that group membership.</p><p></p><p><em>Evil</em>: This is the tough one. The polar opposite of Good, Evil cannot merely disregard what's best for others, it must prioritize the suffering of others over other, more practical or pragmatic considerations. What possible rationalization does this philosophy have? Is life a crucible and suffering is what forges us into our best selves? Does pain give life meaning, and it's our obligation to enable as much meaning as possible? (Might make a little more sense once combined with Law or Chaos...) One additional difficult point: the adherent of this philosophy puts the suffering of others /ahead/ of his own self-interest, it's not pragmatic, uncaring, amoral, indifferent or even depraved indifference, it's not even malice, it's a philosophical belief that suffering is of primary importance to the moral existence of all beings.</p><p></p><p><em>True Neutrality</em>: Both individual merit and membership matter, both well-being and suffering matter. True Neutrals balance the needs of the individual with those of society. Law and justice must be tempered with respect for individual rights, free individuals must not disrupt the smooth functioning of society. True Neutrals may want what's best for most people, both as a society or affinity group and as individuals, but believe that the best results require harsh measures, that the good in life cannot be appreciated without overcoming challenges and suffering.</p><p>The life of a True Neutral is made up entirely of tough choices, with no right answers.</p><p></p><p><em>Unaligned</em>: Not subscribing to the extremes of moral/ethical alignments. Possessing motivations that are more complex. Perhaps following a more nuanced or more specific philosophy, more like a RL belief system. The unaligned character may not examine or question its own motivations - but they're still there, and the player will have to figure them out and keep them consistent. Unaligned characters should be more like slice-of-life, 'real person' characters rather than two-dimensional adherents of some absolute philosophy.</p><p></p><p><em>Lawful Good</em>: You believe in doing what's best for others, and deal with and judge others by their membership & status within groups. Those ideals can easily come into conflict. If your country goes to war, you must kill the enemy, but as they are still fellow human beings, you must also be merciful to them. Good luck with that.</p><p></p><p><em>Chaotic Good</em>: You want what's best for the individual you're dealing with, right now, regardless of the history you may have with others like them. Even an enemy. You might have to defeat or even kill him (swiftly & mercifully), but if he surrenders, if he shows credible signs of potentially becoming a better person - well then, killing him isn't what's best, is it? Good luck with that.</p><p></p><p><em>Lawful Evil</em>: Here's were you can make some sense of the evil philosophy. You belong to a group, you have a place in it. That place dictates that you endure cruelty from those above you in order to rise, and inflict cruelty on those beneath you. Similarly, you are required to be even more vicious to all outsiders. Thus your group is made strong, and it's enemies (it has no friends) cowed or destroyed. You should not feel, and can never express, positive feelings for others. Your life will suck, and if you ever show weakness, it'll suck harder. Enjoy.</p><p></p><p><em>Chaotic Evil</em>: It's easy to picture a just horrible person who simply wants to be cruel to everyone. But this is supposed to be a /philosophy/. How 'bout this: Life is a competition, and not a friendly one. The strong prosper, the weak perish? Nope, too pragmatic. OK, maybe add that suffering is the only valid test of strength? Quickly killing an enemy is weak - to prove yourself, you must make him suffer, even knowing that in drawing it out like that, you're giving him chances to turn the tables on you. For that matter, 'enemy' isn't really an issue, everyone deserves a heaping helping of anguish, yourself included, people you care about, especially. So take risks to make others suffer and show how strong you are by enduring suffering when you're bested. (And, no, masochism would be cheating.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Finally: One thing I tried to keep a common thread, above, is that following an alignment means putting constraints on your behavior, actively doing things you may not want to, facing moral/ethical dilemmas, and putting following your alignment ahead of your best interests, including your personal safety. So the "just gonna do what I wanna do" alignment would be no alignment at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Edit: second pass at TN & Unaligned.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7817762, member: 996"] Nod. I remember noting that back in the day with regard to True Neutrals like Druids being actively concerned with maintaining the balance, vs animal-intelligence neutrals acting on instinct, or neutral, say, thieves, acting on unexamined self interest. 4e's Unaligned, would have stood well as an alternative to the classic balance-oriented True Neutral. But it never did. You're not wrong. This thread has me thinking about different approaches to alignment, again. [B]Alignment As Personality[/B]: Seems to me like the bulk of the discussion in this thread has been this approach. If you're Chaotic or Evil, you have a personality disorder, if you're good, you're saintly, if you're lawful you're OCD, would be a flippant way of putting it. [B]Alignment As Palpable Supernatural Force[/B]: D&D with it's alignment-sorted outer planes, alignment restrictions, alignment detection and things doing damage to you based on our alignment, sure seems to lean in that direction. Perhaps, peaking in 3e, with the whole Team Alignment thing, where every alignment domain go a suite of similar screw-other-alignments spells. In choosing an alignment, you are literally /aligning/ yourself with a cosmological force and it's divine (and other) personifications, in a way about as ambiguous as a particle having a positive or negative charge. Let your moral or ethical wheel get out of alignment and [I][B]ZAP[/B]![/I] [B]Alignment As Philosophy[/B]: This one I'd like to go into, because, well, I feel like it's hasn't been belabored too much yet this time around. The old 'alignment language' concept and the fact you can choose or change alignments seems somewhat consistent with this approach, but I guess it's probably the least-solidly-D&D of the three (though, maybe there's a 4th & 5th to be enumerated?) In this approach, I want to look at alignment as ideas people consciously subscribe to and try to live by. Furthermore, I'm going to go ahead and assume these ideas are primarily about /how you deal with others/ (other intelligent beings, mainly), not who you are or how you feel. [I]Good[/I]: Should be the easiest, and the thorniest, at the same time. When dealing with others you should try to aid, support, or at least respect their happiness and well-being. Of course, that's hard. You may dislike someone, they may have been cruel to you, there may be resentments, broader social forces, and pragmatic obstacles in your way, and you may have to go very much against your own impulses or even your own best interest. And, there are so many situations in which accomplishing good from one perspective might mean disregarding it for another. Good as a philosophical alignment would, I suspect, not go for that. Sometimes there'll be catch-22's where there's no clear Good choice of action, including inaction. Good doesn't say that the universe is Good, just that you should try to be. Again, it's hard. [I]Lawful[/I]: You base your dealings with others on your membership in a group or groups and your position within those groups relative to the memberships & positions of others. Depending on your group memberships, that may mean adhering to strict, codified, literal laws - or not, it might mean a very simple, general or intuitive set of expectations, like 'my Clan, right or wrong' or 'the only good orc is a dead orc." Obviously, that's hard. You must constantly put aside your personal feelings to do what's expected of you. You may hate someone for very good reasons, but, if they're later initiated into your Order, they become a brother, and you're obligated to side with them, work with them, and respect them. Period. [I]Chaotic[/I]: You deal with others solely as individuals. Each new individual you meet has a clean slate. It doesn't matter if you're an elf and he's an orc and orcs killed your family - obviously, it matters, but you still have to judge each orc as an individual. When they're actively trying to kill you, that's easy, of course, they're treating you as they wish you to treat them. The rest of the time, it's hard. You have to guard against preconceptions, against unthinking self-interest, against, really, the basic human (or humanoid, perhaps) need for belonging, because belonging to a group usually demands judging others from the perspective of that group membership. [I]Evil[/I]: This is the tough one. The polar opposite of Good, Evil cannot merely disregard what's best for others, it must prioritize the suffering of others over other, more practical or pragmatic considerations. What possible rationalization does this philosophy have? Is life a crucible and suffering is what forges us into our best selves? Does pain give life meaning, and it's our obligation to enable as much meaning as possible? (Might make a little more sense once combined with Law or Chaos...) One additional difficult point: the adherent of this philosophy puts the suffering of others /ahead/ of his own self-interest, it's not pragmatic, uncaring, amoral, indifferent or even depraved indifference, it's not even malice, it's a philosophical belief that suffering is of primary importance to the moral existence of all beings. [I]True Neutrality[/I]: Both individual merit and membership matter, both well-being and suffering matter. True Neutrals balance the needs of the individual with those of society. Law and justice must be tempered with respect for individual rights, free individuals must not disrupt the smooth functioning of society. True Neutrals may want what's best for most people, both as a society or affinity group and as individuals, but believe that the best results require harsh measures, that the good in life cannot be appreciated without overcoming challenges and suffering. The life of a True Neutral is made up entirely of tough choices, with no right answers. [I]Unaligned[/I]: Not subscribing to the extremes of moral/ethical alignments. Possessing motivations that are more complex. Perhaps following a more nuanced or more specific philosophy, more like a RL belief system. The unaligned character may not examine or question its own motivations - but they're still there, and the player will have to figure them out and keep them consistent. Unaligned characters should be more like slice-of-life, 'real person' characters rather than two-dimensional adherents of some absolute philosophy. [I]Lawful Good[/I]: You believe in doing what's best for others, and deal with and judge others by their membership & status within groups. Those ideals can easily come into conflict. If your country goes to war, you must kill the enemy, but as they are still fellow human beings, you must also be merciful to them. Good luck with that. [I]Chaotic Good[/I]: You want what's best for the individual you're dealing with, right now, regardless of the history you may have with others like them. Even an enemy. You might have to defeat or even kill him (swiftly & mercifully), but if he surrenders, if he shows credible signs of potentially becoming a better person - well then, killing him isn't what's best, is it? Good luck with that. [I]Lawful Evil[/I]: Here's were you can make some sense of the evil philosophy. You belong to a group, you have a place in it. That place dictates that you endure cruelty from those above you in order to rise, and inflict cruelty on those beneath you. Similarly, you are required to be even more vicious to all outsiders. Thus your group is made strong, and it's enemies (it has no friends) cowed or destroyed. You should not feel, and can never express, positive feelings for others. Your life will suck, and if you ever show weakness, it'll suck harder. Enjoy. [I]Chaotic Evil[/I]: It's easy to picture a just horrible person who simply wants to be cruel to everyone. But this is supposed to be a /philosophy/. How 'bout this: Life is a competition, and not a friendly one. The strong prosper, the weak perish? Nope, too pragmatic. OK, maybe add that suffering is the only valid test of strength? Quickly killing an enemy is weak - to prove yourself, you must make him suffer, even knowing that in drawing it out like that, you're giving him chances to turn the tables on you. For that matter, 'enemy' isn't really an issue, everyone deserves a heaping helping of anguish, yourself included, people you care about, especially. So take risks to make others suffer and show how strong you are by enduring suffering when you're bested. (And, no, masochism would be cheating.) Finally: One thing I tried to keep a common thread, above, is that following an alignment means putting constraints on your behavior, actively doing things you may not want to, facing moral/ethical dilemmas, and putting following your alignment ahead of your best interests, including your personal safety. So the "just gonna do what I wanna do" alignment would be no alignment at all. [I]Edit: second pass at TN & Unaligned.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: Chaotic Neutral is the Worst
Top