Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Narf_the_Mouse 11-14-07, 11:21 PM	...Because I've seen waaaaay too many threads where Lawfull gets mistaken for Stupid and I'd like to point out the other side. CN rogue desperatly needs cash, so he goes and robs a guy blind - Doing no other harm in the process. Gets caught, gets thrown in jail for ten years. CG rogue buddy hears about this, breaks his buddy out of jail - Does he loose his Good alignment for helping someone get away with an evil act? CG rogue buddy hears about this, leaves his buddy to rot - Does he loose his Chaotic alignment for allowing someone to loose their freedom? After all, what gets forgotten too often is that Chaotic Good Is a Code of Conduct in and of itself. 'Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them'. Although chaotic has unfortunately not been developed much more than *'Not lawfull', there is plenty of room for alignment conflict - Specifically in cases when a character must choose between supporting 'Unfettered personal freedom' over Good and vice-versa. * By this I mean is that chaotic seems more defined by what it isn't than what it is.
KillerVole 11-14-07, 11:52 PM	I'm not quite sure of the point of this. You say: 'Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them'. ...are you saying that chaotic people are objectivists? Do you just mean that chaotic is, in fact, true alignment, and that it acts a certain way, just as good, evil, and lawful do? If so, I agree with you entirely. I think that law/chaos is merely glossed over because of the good/evil conflict, which tends to dominate most games. Oriental Adventures has an interesting take on this, where the law/chaos conflict (in the form of honor) takes center stage.
Malek2991 11-14-07, 11:54 PM	The chaotic good character should try to free the other rogue, not just because they took away their freedom, but because chaotic good characters believe in friendship over loyalty to the rulers or other officials. However to keep with the good alignment he should help the freed rogue make amends to the person he robbed. Thus he would keep both alignments without any problems. Also note a single act usually won't instantly alter a character's alignment. I.E if a LG character commits a minor evil act (such as stealing something they desperately need) they will remain LG, however a Paladin or Cleric would still need to atone.
CaptainPicard 11-15-07, 12:04 AM	In neither case does the CG Rogue lose his alignment. Not everyone who has an alignment is a crusader. If the CG Rogue thinks his buddy is an ass, then he can let him rot in there, but he'd be more likely to do because he doesn't like the guy anymore or he thought what the CN Rogue did was too evil (remember, the guy can make decisions based on his good alignment too...) rather than consigning himself to "it's the right thing because he broke the law". If he breaks his buddy out of jail, he might risk getting into some alignment trouble depending on how he goes about this. He should try to avoid attacking anyone in the process and if it's unavoidable, he should use only nonlethal options. Dealing lethal damage to a good or neutral guard is definitely grounds for a serious re-evaluation of a character, at the least. Chaotic Good does not mean that the character necessarily cares about granting others personal freedom. Being Chaotic simply means he's going to follow what he personally thinks is the best course of action, without much regard to what the general population believes. Being good means that this normally leads him along a path that has him do good things. A ranger who lives on his own and helps emperiled travelers in the forest he calls home is just as Chaotic Good as the crusader for personal liberties.
Narf_the_Mouse 11-15-07, 12:24 AM	I'm not quite sure of the point of this. You say: 'Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them'. ...are you saying that chaotic people are objectivists? Well, it certainly tends to imply that promoting even fettered personal freedom is at least a minor alignment violation Do you just mean that chaotic is, in fact, true alignment, and that it acts a certain way, just as good, evil, and lawful do? If so, I agree with you entirely. I think that law/chaos is merely glossed over because of the good/evil conflict, which tends to dominate most games. Oriental Adventures has an interesting take on this, where the law/chaos conflict (in the form of honor) takes center stage. Yes, that's one of my points. Chaotic, to be a true alignment, must be more than just a rejection of Lawfull. (That, and 'Why do all alignment conflict posts always talk about Lawfull Good?'. I prefer Good vs. Evil myself, but I'm Lawfull Good, not Lawfull Neutral. The chaotic good character should try to free the other rogue, not just because they took away their freedom, but because chaotic good characters believe in friendship over loyalty to the rulers or other officials. However to keep with the good alignment he should help the freed rogue make amends to the person he robbed. Thus he would keep both alignments without any problems. Also note a single act usually won't instantly alter a character's alignment. I.E if a LG character commits a minor evil act (such as stealing something they desperately need) they will remain LG, however a Paladin or Cleric would still need to atone. Interesting that you made that point, as all I did (Now that I've analysed why I wanted to post that) is take the basic format of a 'Lawfull Good alignment conflict' and port it over to Chaotic Good. And, yeah, he can easily solve it without loosing his alignment, but most 'Alignment conflicts' are nothing of the sort. Also, I pretty much agree with your post. Chaotic Good does not mean that the character necessarily cares about granting others personal freedom. Being Chaotic simply means he's going to follow what he personally thinks is the best course of action, without much regard to what the general population believes. Being good means that this normally leads him along a path that has him do good things. A ranger who lives on his own and helps emperiled travelers in the forest he calls home is just as Chaotic Good as the crusader for personal liberties. Goody! Discussion time! :) It seems to me that your last paragraph better describes a Neutral Good character - As a Moral Neutral character has compunctions against taking innocent life, but does not really concern themselves with others taking innocent life that isn't connected to themselves, an 'Authority Neutral' would not crusade to give others personal freedom unless it touched other concerns of theirs. The rest of it, I agree with, pretty much.
CaptainPicard 11-15-07, 12:40 AM	It seems to me that your last paragraph better describes a Neutral Good character - As a Moral Neutral character has compunctions against taking innocent life, but does not really concern themselves with others taking innocent life that isn't connected to themselves, an 'Authority Neutral' would not crusade to give others personal freedom unless it touched other concerns of theirs. A Chaotic Neutral character would not be expected to concern themselves with the freedoms of others, and most certainly a Chaotic Evil character wouldn't. The first is likely only concerned with his own freedom and ability to do as he chooses while the second could actively strip others of their freedoms if he can overpower them. Chaotic Good is composed of two separate alignment components, a Chaotic and Good portion, and they need to be looked at separately. The character could be Chaotic because he is a fierce individualist who doesn't seek anyone else's approval of his actions and feels no need to justify himself to the masses. He could then be Good because he hates seeing other people in pain, and will go out of his way to help them. Look at some of the example Chaotic Good characters in Complete Scoundrel. Captain Mal only wants to be left to his devices, free to travel the Outer Rim, but his sense of justice leads him to become the hero of the day anyway. Even the ur-example of Chaotic Good alignment, Robin Hood, never particularly cared about whether or not the people of Loxsley enjoyed personal freedoms. He was just angered by the suffering being spread by the oppressive Sheriff.
Narf_the_Mouse 11-15-07, 12:50 AM	Hmm...Then I guess the question is, is opposing a Lawfull (In the sense of LG, LN or LE) government Neutral or Chaotic? Or, more specifically, which alignments would oppose such a government? LG/CG - Cooperation, but uneasy, frictiony cooperation. LN/CN - All-out war. LE/CE - Uneasy cooperation if they both want the same thing, conflict (At least) any other time. LG/CN - Uneasy truce at best, cold war at worst. LG/CE - War. LN/CG - War, cold or hot, with only brief periods of truce. LN/CE - War, cold or hot, with only brief periods of truce. LE/CG - All-out war. LE/CN - War, cold or hot, with only brief periods of truce. I'm not sure why I did that, but there's probably a point in there somewhere.
Awesome_Dude 11-15-07, 07:50 AM	Hmm...Then I guess the question is, is opposing a Lawfull (In the sense of LG, LN or LE) government Neutral or Chaotic? Opposing it is Chaotic, cherrypicking (that is, benefiting from it when you can and opposing it when it doesn't agree with you) is Neutral. Chaotic is an alignment of principle, just as much as Lawful is. LG/CG - Cooperation, but uneasy, frictiony cooperation. LN/CN - All-out war. LE/CE - Uneasy cooperation if they both want the same thing, conflict (At least) any other time. On the Evil part, the armies of the Blood War beg to differ. Evil is selfish enough to want the representative role for itself. For Neutral, there are always minor skirmishes happening on the Great Wheel between the paragons og Law and Chaos, but all out war would only serve as an extension of the Blood War and bring it closer to the Upper Planes, thereby endangering innocent lives. Neutrals may not entirely care about innocents, but they don't actively seek to destroy them either. LG/CN - Uneasy truce at best, cold war at worst. I agree. There could be violent disagreements in certain situation, but I'd consider those to be rare. LG/CE - War. Damn right. LN/CG - War, cold or hot, with only brief periods of truce. LN/CE - War, cold or hot, with only brief periods of truce. I agree here too. CG and CE are both very passionate alignments with strong moral beliefs, whereas LN is subjugation at the cost of identity and emotion, two things they care most about (CN cares equally about them, but LN-CN serves as kind of a buffer line between the Upper and Lower Planes). LE/CG - All-out war. Damn right. LE is about subjugation at the cost of identity, emotion and the upheaval of an elite at the cost of the lower caste. I can imagine that this is an abhorrent ideal to CG. LE/CN - War, cold or hot, with only brief periods of truce. As with LG/CN, though LE are likely to be more violent in their quest. I'm not sure why I did that, but there's probably a point in there somewhere. I think I got it and I agree for the most part. Sorry about taking it apart, I was just trying to make it easier to read. As for a good example of a Chaotic Good character, imagine a lawyer (let's say Alan Shore for the slightly smug mental image). He has discovered incriminating evidence concerning his current client that suggests that he is guilty of many horrible things, but things are looking up for his defense. So the lawyer pulls some strings and gets the evidence anonymously submitted to the district attorney who then gets the man convicted. He broke his oath, and could have been disbarred if he had been discovered, but he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. For a Chaotic Neutral person, think of Snake Plisskin. He hates the government and is almost an avowed anarchist. He despises authority figures and doesn't really care if the people around him die, because they are sheep to him. Mindless slaves to an oppressive regime. He hates them, but not enough to actively try to hurt or kill them. If he so happens to need something, he is not above bullying, bribing and negotiating (only if he absolutely has to), though he is very unlikely to kill except in self-defense. A good example of a Chaotic Evil character would be Riddick. He is a convicted murderer and has a knack for escaping any prison he gets thrown into, and uses his reputation shamelessly to bully and intimidate people to get what he wants. There are a few people he respects and thus will not kill, but they are few in number (like, 3, or something; could be an adventuring party in D&D). His strongest weapons are his treacherousness, his seemingly natural facility with combat and the knives he so loves stabbing people with. And he uses them mercilessly. Another example of a more villainous Chaotic Evil is Simon Phoenix (Demolition Man). He is even more of a bully than Riddick and revels in the violence he creates around him. The most dangerous part about him is his unpredictability and his knack for finding the things he needs to kill and destroy. Worse yet, he is incredibly smart and doesn't hesitate to use his intelligence to further himself. Even the people that saved his life and hired him (though they did hire him for less than beneficial purposes) aren't safe from his murderousness.
Luis_Carlos 11-15-07, 08:07 AM	Now I have a doubt. Would be Saint Simeon Salus, the holy fool from Syria (holy day: 1st July) Lawul Good or Chaotic Good in D&D terms? :D :D :D :D :D