Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Persephone Imytholin 11-09-04, 08:32 AM	As far as game mechanics go, alignment is one of the most hotly debated. Some love it, others hate it, and still more make jokes about it. A rare few write articles on the subject. In all honesty, I've never really liked alignment. I've tried to fix it, writing out a system with 441 distinct alignment combinations. I've tried to ignore it, only to run into problems with the rules for spells and magic items. I've tried to pin it down with mercilessly precise definitions, sending paper and ink to an untimely death for no real benefit. Of course, the biggest problem with alignment is its use. Some players (and DMs) feel that alignment is restrictive, and is there to limit a character's actions, and these are the ones that have the worst time of it. Typically, it works better to treat alignment as a descriptive tool; that is, a description of how your character acts, behaves and thinks. Ideally, your character should define your alignment, rather than the other way around. So, how do we fix this? Alignment Definitions To be perfectly honest, I find the alignment definitions given in the PH to be completely useless. They're unclear, unfitting, and overprecise – all at the same time. I use the following two simpler definitions for alignment. Selflessness versus Selfishness – the Good/Evil Axis It seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? Good characters give of themselves for the benefit of others, while evil characters take from others to benefit themselves. All doesn't have to be as it appears, though. First, normal people. Normal folk are defined as neutral. They'll do their best to benefit themselves, but they'll try not to hurt others in doing it. They'll take their fair share, and they'll let everyone else have theirs. They'll share, so long as others share alike. In a normal community, this is pretty much the accepted standard of behaviour. Good characters will usually be courteous, respectful and selfless. Usually. Of course, this doesn't mean that they have to help everyone with everything. Many good characters are content to help others to help themselves; they may buy bread for a beggar instead of throwing him coins, for example. At any rate, good characters are usually happy to do stuff simply because it benefits other people – whether they directly benefit or not. The tricky part is that a lot of evil characters will be nicer than the good characters, and seem to be more generous. They'll accept their repayment in ways that further their own cause, or the cause of a group they identify with. An evil character is always working in the background, striving toward their eventual aims. They may join up with good characters and uproot some evils, but it's just to establish trust and remove competition. An evil character is out for their own benefit, and they don't care who it hurts – unless that makes it harder to benefit further. Conservatism versus Dynamism – the Law/Chaos Axis This one's a bit harder to take at first, mostly because it's more abstract. Let's start with the neutral people again. They're generally satisfied to stay with what works, and will generally want to improve things that don't. They'll typically follow some kind of basic routine, but leave things fairly open-ended. Lawful characters will tend to follow set patterns and work to maintain the status quo. They may insist on a strict social order, but this isn't strictly necessary. They'll only worry about major changes if they're absolutely necessary, otherwise they'll usually favour carefully controlled reforms. This works in the laws of a society, the faith of a monk or cleric, and the careful scheming of a Machiavellian prince. Chaotic characters tend to actively support and bring about change, discovery, explanation or experimentation. If there's something not to their liking, then they'll do their best to fix the 'problem'. These tendencies don't, however, mean that their own values are any less firm than their lawful counterparts. Examples of this kind of attitude would be a gnomish inventor always designing a new device, da Vinci or Nero (but for very different reasons). When should I choose my alignment? That one can be tricky. If your alignment is critically important to your concept – such as your deity's faith, or a class you absolutely must take – then you should use it to define your character from the inside out. That way, you get the character who you really did want to play. If your alignment isn't critical to your concept, then make your character and write out your character's background and personality before you choose. That way, you have a defined set of thoughts, actions and responses that you can use to help to work from the outside in – and that way, you'll pick an alignment you'll love to play, rather than one that you think you should have. And how should I play my alignment? I, personally, think you shouldn't. I think that you should play your character and your concept, and never look at your alignment unless the rules need you to. Sometimes your alignment might shift – and that's perfectly fine. People change their beliefs all the time, and your character shouldn't have to be any different. Use alignment to reflect on your character, rather than to define what your character should do. ------------------------------ Of course, all this is just my opinion, and I'd appreciate respectful, intelligent discussion on it. If you want to use or mangle the above for your own twisted ends, then you may do so.
zioth 11-09-04, 02:01 PM	Very nice post. A major implication of the way you define alignment is that the average person is true neutral. Although this doesn't fit into the standard D&D alignment system, I think it's an interesting concept. Just as you decide how strong you are by comparing your strength score to the average of 10.5, you decide what kind of person you are by comparing your alignment to the average of true neutral.
Persephone Imytholin 11-09-04, 05:29 PM	It's deliberate, since I remember reading somewhere that average people are supposed to be neutral. Or maybe that they should be, to give alignment more story significance. Hmm... I might have to try to track down where I saw it.
Josuwar 11-10-04, 07:58 AM	My biggest problem with most peoples view on lawfulness is that supposedly lawful people have to follow/respect the law of the land/government. I don't agree with that because many lawful good gods (take Tyr for example) are as opposed to opression (which is generally seen as LE) as they are to chaotic evil. When a paladin of Tyr comes to an empire of lawful evil they shouldn't respect the authority, and definately not follow law. They will want to change that society. There is a chance they will have to kill the Tyrant in charge to bring that change... and thats not carefully reforming the society. In my opinion that doesn't make the paladin chaotic, because he was true to his doctrine. In my opinion lawfulness or chaos has nothing to do with governments. For example; lets say a Chaotic person overthrows a government and changes the values and traditions of a country to match his own... will he then become lawful because he now agrees with the authority and wants to conserve the traditions of this country?
Persephone Imytholin 11-10-04, 09:00 AM	I'll start by thanking you for your counterargument. It'll help to further define and express the above. My biggest problem with most peoples view on lawfulness is that supposedly lawful people have to follow/respect the law of the land/government.I'm not most people, and I apologise if the OP gave that impression. I don't agree with that because many lawful good gods (take Tyr for example) are as opposed to opression (which is generally seen as LE) as they are to chaotic evil.Lawful good, in my book, is equal to lawful and good. Good doesn't undermine law, law doesn't make one less good. When a paladin of Tyr comes to an empire of lawful evil they shouldn't respect the authority, and definately not follow law. They will want to change that society. There is a chance they will have to kill the Tyrant in charge to bring that change... and thats not carefully reforming the society. In my opinion that doesn't make the paladin chaotic, because he was true to his doctrine.Pretty much exactly, yes. Especially since Lawful characters will ... worry about major changes if they're absolutely necessaryBeing lawful-and-good, the paladin may kill the tyrant. The reason isn't to stamp out evil. It's to make things better for the people, and it's in service of a clearly defined faith, order and beliefs. Chances are, they'll then stick around and try to help protect those very same people until it looks like things can look after themselves, helping to shape the future society so that it can become an ordered, stable harmonious place. In my opinion lawfulness or chaos has nothing to do with governments. For example; lets say a Chaotic person overthrows a government and changes the values and traditions of a country to match his own... will he then become lawful because he now agrees with the authority and wants to conserve the traditions of this country?Of course not, but govenment has everything to do with law and chaos. To deal with your example (independently of good and evil), a chaotic person installs a government. They construct an effective government (a universal desire), responsive to events in the society they govern. This responsiveness will typically include mechanisms to adapt law, foreign policy, crime and justice and social policy depending on the needs of those the government represents (that is, itself or its people). In this light, a chaotic person in a chaotic-aligned government needn't be seen as 'lawful'; a liberal government is a perfectly plausible and non-conservative arrangement.
Josuwar 11-10-04, 11:05 AM	I'll start by thanking you for your counterargument. It'll help to further define and express the above. Happy to be of service :) ! My post was not neccesarilly meant as a counter argument though, but I can't always make clear what I'm trying to say because my english isn't good enough. I'm not most people, and I apologise if the OP gave that impression. I probably should have said "a lot of people", it is just a view that I see a lot on these boards have, not neccesarily you. Here are some other observations. Good characters will usually be courteous, respectful and selfless. You do say usually of course, but courtesy to me is acting in a certain way that is expected of aristocracy/gentlemen. So it may be more lawful than good, since it is a code of conduct. Despite the fact that its definition is respectful behaviour (and respect towards life is a trait of good). Perhaps it depends on why someone is courteous, because it was his upbringing (lawful), or because he does not want to hurt someones feelings by being rude (good). Chaotic characters tend to actively support and bring about change, discovery, explanation or experimentation. If there's something not to their liking, then they'll do their best to fix the 'problem'. I think I understand what you mean here, but by the way its stated it looks like lawful characters would be less inclined to stand up for their (or others) interests (laziness). Of course not, but govenment has everything to do with law and chaos. To deal with your example (independently of good and evil), a chaotic person installs a government. They construct an effective government (a universal desire), responsive to events in the society they govern. This responsiveness will typically include mechanisms to adapt law, foreign policy, crime and justice and social policy depending on the needs of those the government represents (that is, itself or its people). In this light, a chaotic person in a chaotic-aligned government needn't be seen as 'lawful'; a liberal government is a perfectly plausible and non-conservative arrangement. In a country with a liberal/chaotic population with a liberal/chaotic government, the people of this country would not actively be promoting change because they are content with their country. Yet actively promoting change is one of the traits most people agree on belongs to Chaos. (The question could also be if a chaotic government is actually possible, true chaos is anarchy, which is the opposite of government) Just for reference. My main point about law and chaos not having anything to do with governments was that since there are more than one governments in most worlds, a character wouldn't just change alignment the moment they step over the border. So you can't say "I don't agree with this government thus I am chaotic", because you might agree with another government.
Persephone Imytholin 11-10-04, 06:22 PM	While true chaos would be anarchistic, there's no reason to assume this is inherently a Bad Thing. Most people have no real desire to randomly kill or hurt others. While the idea of a chaotic people being perfectly satisfied with their government might be a paradox on the surface, it really isn't. Chaotic people are as firm in their own beliefs as lawful people, so upholding their principles is still upholding their principles. Promoting responsiveness and openness to change is, in many ways, just as valuable as actually agitating for change itself. On the other point, lawful people aren't really lazy. I'd meant a problem with a law, code or system. If something's a significant issue for a person or community, then a lawful person is probably still going to want to solve their problem - just in different ways.
Insignia) 11-11-04, 06:21 AM	A brilliant discussion on a great subject... Alignment, ever the gray area. I've always had trouble with the subjecty myself (can't draw a visible line between law/chaos and good/evil), and seen your in-depth analysis of it, I'd really like to hear some thoughts on my character's possible alignments. :) Well, it's a fighter/rogue assasssin character. The first thing I didn't quite appreciate was *any evil* prequisite for the assassin prestige class. In core DnD, the class is closely tied to an (evil?) organization, so I can understand why it's so. However, in perspective, there are many freelance assassins that could perfectly well be true neutral imo, since an assassin is no more than a tool. The act is only as evil as the person ordering it, and there's no reason for an assassin not to be picky regarding his marks. On the other hand, the assassin is a class that perfects the art of killing. That doesn't automatically make him/her a hired blade, does it? I also find alignment limiting in terms of complexity. My character is an elitist and as such can be selfish at times, but he's also very loyal to his friends, perhaps risking his life for them (even though he probably wouldn't admit it). He's not openly evil in the classic, sadistic takeovertheworld terms, yet a *detect evil* spell would show an aura of evil about him (free hard-times-in-Cormyr card), true? He also has a strict code of conduct, but will completely ignore laws if it suits his aims. He may find himself getting out of his way to help someone if he considers it the right thing to do at the time, but can be cruel and cold as well... How would you define such a character? :/ P.S. Isn't the average person supposed to be lawful? ...In any case, I'd love to see your complete description of the big nine, Persephone :)
Persephone Imytholin 11-11-04, 08:46 AM	Occupationally, it depends very strongly on the assassin. The word 'assassin' has its roots in the word 'hashish' - since the assassins were a sect controlled via drug addiction. They were then called on to perform tasks such as killings, knowing that their moral objections would last only as long as their supply of drugs. While certainly not good, this kind of character is a definite candidate for a neutral alignment (morally, at least). If you're playing a non-historical assassin, killing in return for payment, then I'd have to say it's an evil career choice. The decision to kill a person specifically for a benefit to the self (or self-group) is an evil one. Perfecting killing, in and of itself, isn't a particularly aligned act - soldiers, slaughterers, hunters, trappers and clerics will generally do it, to varying degrees. Perfecting killing in order to keep more people safe can be reasoned to be good, perfecting killing as part of a daily routine can be reasoned as lawful, and perfecting killing to make a killing is a pretty nefarious act. Depending on the income side of things, your character is probably lawful and either neutral or evil. The lawful side of this comes from the strict personal code, and I'd assume a strict routine and programme of steady personal improvement. These traits all fall into the lawful camp pretty well, even if your character occasionally disrespects the letter of the law. ((OT: I've started bashing out the alignment descriptions. Expect them in the next day or two.))
Persephone Imytholin 11-14-04, 09:14 AM	Actually, I've changed my mind. I'd either leave stuff out or drive myself insane trying to write full descriptions for the alignments. What I'll do instead is, as I throw out some characters as examples in other articles, link them here under their alignment. That way, there should (eventually) be a few examples for each rather than a bit of a rant about it.
Korimyr the Rat 03-20-05, 08:50 AM	Actually, I have to take issue with your classification of the Good/Evil axis as Selflessness/Selfishness. I'd say that this actually spans both the Good/Evil and the Law/Chaos axes-- and is thus not a good basis for alignment. For instance, your Lawful Evil character, of course, wishes to advance himself. However, he does this primarily by advancing the cause of the group he belongs to-- this improves both his lot in life and his position within the group, moving him closer to the center of power, where he might direct the group to his own aims. He may act against the interests of a member of the group (for instance, to take his place), but will not act against the interests of the group itself. On the other hand, a Chaotic Good character will want to help others-- selfless, right?-- but at the same time, he is not predisposed to groupthink, and probably not too tied to the wellbeing of any particular group. He wants to help people, regardless of their affiliation to his allies, or his enemies, or what-have-you. (Within reason, of course-- he won't give his spare ammo to the enemy, though he might treat enemy wounded.) Particularly, he seeks individual good, both for himself and for others. He thinks individually, whether dealing with ally or enemy. You might not call him selfish, but at the same time, "selfless" doesn't quite seem to fit, either. I'm also uncertain that Conservatism/Dynamism is quite right for Law/Chaos, either. Certainly, it contributes, but there are cases where it does not apply. For instance, the lawful love of order and clean, smooth operation can force a Lawful character to seek to change society. (I nearly typed "rebel".) A person can hold very deep Lawful views, and yet still seek to upset the status quo by implementing them-- even within a Lawful society, if the character believes the current system of law is incorrect in some fashion. Likewise, at a certain level of Chaotic, it becomes nearly impossible for a society to be truly dynamic; not only do people have more difficulty coordinating effort the more chaotic they are, but the more Chaotic the individual people are, the more likely that their agenda will change before they have time to implement it. Any long-term program of societal change requires Lawful elements, even if that merely means a core of dedicated Neutrals (or more stable Chaotics) to implement it. I'll leave aside liberalism for the moment, because despite my view that it is too individualistic-- too Chaotic-- for a proper society, it is, in itself, a system and structure of laws. Indeed, it requires a system of laws restricting the lawmakers themselves. However, in a system that allows a Chaotic character to express himself more or less as he pleases, why would he agitate for change? Why would he do anything other than... well, do whatever he does, without interference? I tend to view the Law/Chaos axis in terms of predictability and cooperation versus spontaneity and individualism. Good and Evil, I see in terms of seeking the wellbeing of others versus seeking power. (I could digress here into my attitudes about power, but that'd be off-topic.)
Persephone Imytholin 03-20-05, 09:49 AM	Actually, I have to take issue with your classification of the Good/Evil axis as Selflessness/Selfishness. I'd say that this actually spans both the Good/Evil and the Law/Chaos axes-- and is thus not a good basis for alignment. For instance, your Lawful Evil character, of course, wishes to advance himself. However, he does this primarily by advancing the cause of the group he belongs to ... He may act against the interests of a member of the group (for instance, to take his place), but will not act against the interests of the group itself. I'm not seeing how this contradicts the rest of the thread, especially since the benefits to the group are being expressly used toward benefitting the self. Sowing chaos within the group is undesirable, since it lets things get out of control and would probably not benefit a lawful evil character. On the other hand, a Chaotic Good character will want to help others ... regardless of their affiliation to his allies, or his enemies, or what-have-you ... Particularly, he seeks individual good, both for himself and for others. He thinks individually, whether dealing with ally or enemy. Seeking individual good at the expense of the self fits as 'selfish', for the purposes of the OP. The chaotic character can think as individually or globally as he likes, and he's still doing good for others for their benefit more than for his. I'm also uncertain that Conservatism/Dynamism is quite right for Law/Chaos, either [since] there are cases where it does not apply... A person can hold very deep Lawful views, and yet still seek to upset the status quo by implementing them-- even within a Lawful society, if the character believes the current system of law is incorrect in some fashion. Agreed. This view is, in fact, expressed in the above posts. However, in a system that allows a Chaotic character to express himself more or less as he pleases, why would he agitate for change? Why would he do anything other than... well, do whatever he does, without interference? Again covered above.