Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Knight9910 12-30-06, 05:11 AM	•"Chaotic means I can do whatever I want!" No. No it doesn't. You're still bound by your spot on the good/evil axis. Mostly players use the chaos argument as a way to stick a slaughterfest character in a non-evil (or even good only) campaign. Chaotic good is still good. Chaotic neutral, which is slightly closer to the "I do anything!" attitude is still neutral. A chaotic neutral character will be required to help at least as many people as they randomly kill to avoid becoming chaotic evil. Speaking of which... •"Paladins can't kill anyone who doesn't detect as evil." Don't think being chaotic neutral will let you slaughter villagers without the party paladin getting upset. Paladins aren't stupid, nor are they bound by some code that says they can only kill certain people no matter what. You may not detect as evil but you're still committing evil acts. They might not slay you on the spot but they are duty-bound to stop you.
Witch 12-30-06, 05:42 AM	Chaotic Neutral people don't randomly slaughter villagers.
Vikjunk 12-30-06, 08:16 AM	Chaotic Neutral people don't randomly slaughter villagers. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't slaughter villagers if he felt that he was justified. Like the example of a Druid going after a village when they feel that it is damaging the environment too much. A good or lawful character would most likely try to reason with the villagers before attack but a chaotic character might just go the direct root and get rid of the villagers without warning since they would most likely feel that would be the most likely outcome anyways and that way he wouldn’t have to give up the element of surprise.
Morwen 12-30-06, 11:33 AM	Being chaotic neutral doesn't mean you "can do whatever evil you want as long as you do enough good". It means you are firmly against lawful. You probably don't care much about evil or good, in fact.
Anaxander 12-30-06, 12:57 PM	Neutral (on the good-evil axis) people are often as much against evil deeds as good characters. The difference is that neutral people won't put themselves in danger for someone else. Chaotic (on the law-chaos axis) people often act impulsively and intuitively. A neutral (good-evil) person who, once in a lifetime, saves somebody while this deed endangers himself, acts chaotic rather than good, because it is an expression of his position on the law-chaos axis (impulsiveness). A chaotic person could, as a whim, act lawfully know and then. This doesn't make his general attitude lawful.
Sphyre 12-30-06, 05:22 PM	As a preface: this is yet another alignment thread. It's been talked about at great lengths before. I don't think anything I'm saying is really unique or new. The Good-Evil alignment spectrum is a bit less debated than the Law-Chaos. Although, the problem in the Law-Chaos alignment spectrum is the fact that they aren't quite words to define the ideas that have been explained by the PHB. A lawful creature is one that thinks and acts in accordance to it's perceived set of universal truths and/or values. The more lawful a creature, the stronger it is to beleive that there is a universal truth that binds everyone accordingly, and that those should follow that universal truth. This creature will consistently weigh each situation with it's perceived code in mind. A chaotic creature is one that thinks and acts due to what it perceives as the best course of action to meet it's goals. The more chaotic a creature, the less likely it's previous actions will be to influence the outcome of any action. This creature may seem to have no connection when you compare any 2 or more actions it may have done. Regardless of the fact, it does not mean the creature is stupid, rather that it does not think that you need to be thinking the same way everytime to conclude what your actions will be. Both of these are spectrums. They are not finite, nor do you need to be a paragon of your alignment if you happen to be that alignment. Someone who is chaotic may in fact follow all laws. Someone who is Lawful, may actually rebel against a government. Upon reading and accepting those definitions. A mass murderer would more likely be lawful rather than chaotic. Sure, maybe a chaotic person might choose to sacrifice the town's people in order to get something from the situation, but it's only one of the multiple plans that he would consider. Both of which are evil though. Why would a mass murderer be lawful? If that lawful creature valued the concept of survival of the fitest. Everyone who's weaker than me will perish. Everytime that's what the lawful evil creature beleives, and would act appopriately. But the chaotic evil creature would only do so if it were convenient for him, and well... if he chose that action over doing something else to accomplish his goals. Alignment is not an excuse, nor the reason for your actions. It reflects your actions accordingly. You come first, your alignment is merely a descriptor of you.
DreadArchon 12-30-06, 06:47 PM	Being chaotic neutral doesn't mean you "can do whatever evil you want as long as you do enough good". It means you are firmly against lawful. You probably don't care much about evil or good, in fact. Well, no. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer).
Knight9910 12-30-06, 07:24 PM	This was mainly in response to the plethora of comments I've seen about law and chaos. Particularly in a recent thread where several people proposed that a player who wanted to be evil in a party with a paladin become chaotic neutral instead because, they said, it meant he could kill as many people as he wanted and no one, even the paladin, could say anything. Now, if you want to talk about misinterpretations I've had players before who thought that lawful meant you were nice and chaotic meant you were mean....and argued with me about it for hours on end. I had one try to convince me to make a houserule that good can't be chaotic and evil can't be lawful because of that interpretation. I even had one player who thought alignments were so strict that if you didn't base every decision and every second on your alignment you lost it. He wanted to make a character who was "Chaotic Evil/Neutral because he can go from violently killing people one second to calmly picking up bodies when he's done."
King Bulba 12-30-06, 07:50 PM	Paladins aren't stupid, nor are they bound by some code that says they can only kill certain people no matter what. You may not detect as evil but you're still committing evil acts. They might not slay you on the spot but they are duty-bound to stop you. Yeah you are wrong, to be a LG paladin you need a 6 or less intelegence, go ahead and check... its in my PHB (handwritten LOL) True paladins with 6 or more int are NG since L and G dont mix well and good is what really is important. Anyways I agree that they don't need to detect evil to smite when they see evil. Actully I dont think they detect evil very often since only clerics and paladins give off auras in which to detect on mortals, extrapalnar creatures on the other hand light up fine hehe. Not that people follow that anyways but had to say it... Chaotic just means you don't follow anyones rules but your own. Elves are this way because they think they are suprerior to everyone else so their ways dont matter. If others rules line up with yours then you have no issue with them. CG just means you are a pragmatist of good. You do what works. If that means you need to lie cheat and steal then you will. You dont do it with malice, it's out of obligation to good. Note it's VERY easy to slip out of good this way since if you do it for yourself thats CN. I actully think CG is very hard to play without slipping into CN.
Stormbrand 12-30-06, 07:51 PM	So Chaotic Nuetral generally does not think beyond themselves. Harming others is not nuetral. Opposing restrictions is chaotic, but willingness to harm others does not fit on the law/chaos axis. Chaotic means the character thinks he can do what he wants, what he wants determines if he is good or evil. Truthfully, I am looking for something paladins can have to deal with chaotic nuetrals, because I am sick of having to fight CN and not have my special abilities work. Sphyre, about the mass murderer being lawful, alot of people make the mistake of lawful meaning having a personal code, regardless of what that code is. Having a code can be chaotic if it encourages chaotic behaviour.
Merryadocc 12-30-06, 07:56 PM	Alignments, Food for thought. http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target9.html Chaotic Evil http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target172.html Chaotic Evil 2 http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target10.html Chaotic Good http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target17.html Lawfull Evil http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target34.html Chaotic Neutral http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target199.html Chaotic Neutral 2 http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target50.html Lawfull Good http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target160.html Lawfull Good 2 http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target61.html True Neutral http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target198.html True Neutral 2 http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target87.html Neutral Evil http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target171.html Neutral Evil 2 http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target196.html Neutral Good http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target197.html Lawfull Neutral http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target176.html
Stormbrand 12-30-06, 08:17 PM	Yeah you are wrong, to be a LG paladin you need a 6 or less intelegence, go ahead and check... its in my PHB (handwritten LOL) True paladins with 6 or more int are NG since L and G dont mix well and good is what really is important. Anyways I agree that they don't need to detect evil to smite when they see evil. Actully I dont think they detect evil very often since only clerics and paladins give off auras in which to detect on mortals, extrapalnar creatures on the other hand light up fine hehe. Not that people follow that anyways but had to say it... Chaotic just means you don't follow anyones rules but your own. Elves are this way because they think they are suprerior to everyone else so their ways dont matter. If others rules line up with yours then you have no issue with them. CG just means you are a pragmatist of good. You do what works. If that means you need to lie cheat and steal then you will. You dont do it with malice, it's out of obligation to good. Note it's VERY easy to slip out of good this way since if you do it for yourself thats CN. I actully think CG is very hard to play without slipping into CN. The first 2 paragraphs are mostly wrong, the last is excellent. Read the Winter King for an example of Lawful Good. Lawful Good literally believes order is the best way to do good - "If we all work together, everybody prospers." as well as "Personal is not the same as important." Detect Evil picks up auras from every creature, but most mortals have very weak auras (1 per 5 HD). Clerics, Paladins and Blackguards just have auras on par with outsiders. Though I agree a paladin can kill a non-evil being if need be. A LG character does not cheat and steal because he believes that is a very poor way to do good. Truth is used to build trust, and trust makes it easier to help people. Clear rules are used to be fair and to do the most to protect the most. Assassinating a leader is poor practise because whatever is put in place will have less credibility and significance due to the precedent. Chaotic good finds the expedient way to do good, Lawful finds the complete way to do good.
King Bulba 12-30-06, 09:37 PM	Truthfully, I am looking for something paladins can have to deal with chaotic nuetrals, because I am sick of having to fight CN and not have my special abilities work. :weep: Yeah no offense but go cry somewhere else. Paladins are retarded. You are lucky your DM doesn't enforce the 6 int or less rule! You need the less int to ignore the truth that law and good dont mix well! OK on a serious note... Paladins are not supposed to be easy. CNs are something they are intended to deal with. Paladins dislike them but have to respect them. As long as they are not hurting others its a valid lifestyle choice. He can still stop them from commiting evil and arrest them if they do evil... They just can't smite them since they are not evil. Actully I have yet seen one that by RAW would work for an extended period of time, law and good conflict WAY to much. My current parties paladin... well should have had its powers taken away a LONG time ago but the DM doesnt want to deal with it so ignores it. Seriously he attacks anything black because black is the color of evil... Detect Evil picks up auras from every creature, but most mortals have very weak auras (1 per 5 HD). Yeah I disagree. I know RAW supports you but if you haven't heard RAW = UTTER garbage... I hear it was written by random chance by having 500 monkeys typing untill something came out coherent. Mortals are non magical natrually and produce no auras untill they are created, like being a paladin / cleric / blackguard imo. A build up of casting evil spells maybe... There can be some exceptions, hellbound should give off an evil aura even if he or she is a good paladin. My intepetation anyways to reduce alignment from afflicting the game from idiocy. Obviously I dislike the whole system, so take what I say with a grain of salt or ignore me completely. Chaotic good finds the expedient way to do good, Lawful finds the complete way to do good. I wouldn't put it that way, lawful good believes that there is a specific way things should be done, through order. The word "complete" you said implys that chaotic isnt doing the same ammount of good. They are equially doing the same ammount of good. IMO LG does less but by RAW they do he same.
Stormbrand 12-30-06, 10:24 PM	:weep: Yeah no offense but go cry somewhere else. Paladins are retarded. You are lucky your DM doesn't enforce the 6 int or less rule! You need the less int to ignore the truth that law and good dont mix well! The internet is no excuse for such a childish attitude. High Int understands HOW law and good mix well. OK on a serious note... Paladins are not supposed to be easy. CNs are something they are intended to deal with. Paladins dislike them but have to respect them. As long as they are not hurting others its a valid lifestyle choice. He can still stop them from commiting evil and arrest them if they do evil... They just can't smite them since they are not evil. CN thieves? There was a fun thread about an arrogant swordsman, but there are CN characters who do need stopping. Slaad. Often nothing but destroyers Actully I have yet seen one that by RAW would work for an extended period of time, law and good conflict WAY to much. My current parties paladin... well should have had its powers taken away a LONG time ago but the DM doesnt want to deal with it so ignores it. Seriously he attacks anything black because black is the color of evil... I hear so much about the same problem with Chaotic Nuetrals. Again, Slaad. Yeah I disagree. I know RAW supports you but if you haven't heard RAW = UTTER garbage... I hear it was written by random chance by having 500 monkeys typing untill something came out coherent. Mortals are non magical natrually and produce no auras untill they are created, like being a paladin / cleric / blackguard imo. A build up of casting evil spells maybe... There can be some exceptions, hellbound should give off an evil aura even if he or she is a good paladin. My intepetation anyways to reduce alignment from afflicting the game from idiocy. Obviously I dislike the whole system, so take what I say with a grain of salt or ignore me completely. Probably best just to ignore you. For one thing, paladins sense evil not magic, and D&D assumes the existance of souls. I wouldn't put it that way, lawful good believes that there is a specific way things should be done, through order. The word "complete" you said implys that chaotic isnt doing the same ammount of good. They are equially doing the same ammount of good. IMO LG does less but by RAW they do he same. I would say LG does more, but that is because I think in a very LG manner.
Oswald Krato 12-30-06, 10:56 PM	I forget exactly where I saw it or exactly what it said, but Lawful Good says that by setting up rules/boundaries/guidelines, one generation of intelligent good people can have their impact across many generations. Chaotic Good does immediate, expedient good. Stealing from the baker to give the homeless orphans a meal is Chaotic Good. Setting up the orphans with a job helping the baker and getting food in the bargain is Lawful Good. "Personal is not the same as important. Personally, throwing myself to certain death in order to stop an infernal machine that would otherwise destroy the world sounds painful and seriously inconvenient. However, it's more important to save the world than to be comfortable. Otherwise I'd have retired to a castle with the princess I left behind. If you can't retrieve my body...tell her I love her." That's Lawful Good. To the original topic, though...chaos...Venom from Spider-Man comes to mind. Impulsive, doesn't care to think about long-term consequences, does what he thinks is right. Chaos results from the absence of absolutes. Lawful Good believes in absolutes...that premeditated murder against an innocent is wrong, for example. I can't think of a Lawful Good god of murder. Killing, sure. Killing happens...but murder's different. Wow, I tend to tangentiate. In short, Chaos is immediate action. Chaos and Law can both have high Int stats, but use them to different purposes. Law looks to the long-term and how needs can continue to be met. Chaos looks to the moment. For those Star Wars geeks out there, Qui-Gon from Ep. 1 and all his talk of being in the moment is very Chaos-ish to me. This is probably why he wasn't on the council--there's a Lawful requirement.
King Bulba 12-30-06, 11:44 PM	I would say LG does more, but that is because I think in a very LG manner. So do I, send a PM to SMRTGMP if you think im BSing. I understand fully that L and G dont mix well beacuse I live it every day... Look at congress, in truth they are a bunch of generally good people but in the system they become selfish and often go currupt. Ever think why? It is not the people, its the system. Order has rules, and rules slow things down. Also to get ahead you have to exploit the rules, there goes your integrity... Order has some major problems against good. People get trials which can let bad guys slip free. Technicalities exist in order that let evil slip away. There are numerous issues that causes problems with order. Look at it in evolutionary terms. Thoughs who expoit the rules do better. Good doesn't exploit others since they are good, they play on a supposed even battleground. So thoughs who survive in congress over time are people who are not good. Not to say good can not exist nor that they cant do well, but they just have a harder time doing it. So while order let the muderer go free on a technicality, chaos has exicuted the muderer and already has moved on to kill 3 other bad guys in the same amount of time. Are you still staying they are equal? Dont get me wrong pure chaos has problems too and what's best is both aka neutral but betweem law and chaos it is not even funny which one is more effecient. The internet is no excuse for such a childish attitude. It is called sarcasm sometimes its hard to understand with text, I wasn't insulting you, I was making fun of paladins, who I still state as being retarded. Though you do have to admitt you were pretty whiny that you can't smite CN...
King Bulba 12-30-06, 11:55 PM	Wow, I tend to tangentiate. In short, Chaos is immediate action. Chaos and Law can both have high Int stats, but use them to different purposes. Law looks to the long-term and how needs can continue to be met. Chaos looks to the moment. An interesting idea, my gut reaction says different but part of me has to agrees with you a little. Order can be VERY short sighted. Congress can not even pass a bill to deal with illegal immigration or fix social security, even though if they wait the problem gets larger and more expensive. It is VERY short sighted to ignore it. That though could be attributed to Americas specific type of democracy which focuses on the present and not the future like a parlement can. In DnD I think chaos might not be so short sighted. Look at the elves, they live a long time and are natured focused. I suspect that they look in the long term but I have nothing to prove my point. Anyways interesting idea, Oswald Krato have a :cookie: . For those Star Wars geeks out there, Qui-Gon from Ep. 1 and all his talk of being in the moment is very Chaos-ish to me. This is probably why he wasn't on the council--there's a Lawful requirement. Order was holding the force back. Yeah so good won in the end because of chaos. Thanks for the help hehe.
JasonOrlandoHawk 12-31-06, 12:19 AM	The best point I've seen made in regards to Chaotic Neutral was as follows: Do you want an example of CN? Check out Han Solo in Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope. He's a Mercenary who's motivated solely by money. He blatantly disregards the existance of any universal power in favor of his own wit and skill. In fact, other than Chewbacca, Han Solo doesn't really care about anyone. In the Mos Eisley Cantina, Han Solo could have easily used a Stun Blast on Gredo and escaped, but instead he fires a lethal shot b/c he's cornered and he doesn't like it. Really, IMO, the problem w/ CN is that it's hard to stay CN for very long. As the person who originally pointed this out to me admitted, by the end of Episode 6, Han Solo is very clearly CG. He suddenly goes from Blasting Gredo to using Hand-to-Hand combat on Stormtroopers. He actually cares about the Rebel Alliance's mission so much that he volunteers for a suicide mission. He even risks the Falcon by giving it to Lando so that they have his really awesome ship to use in the attack on the Death Star. Han has clearly changed. That is what seems to happen w/ every CN that I've ever seen. They either care too much (and go CG), or get too violent (and go CE). It's hard to walk that thin red line between Good and Evil when the only motivating factor you have is yourself. Also, for all those Paladin-haters out there, Lawful Good isn't a contradiction of terms any more than Chaotic Good is. A Lawful Good character approaches Good from a Society-based standpoint. They believe that Good is best accomplished by being an example for others (Honorable, Honest, Hard Working, etc...) to look up to and follow. Are all laws good? No, but LG characters, when made aware of those laws, seek to change them so that, again, society benefits. Chaotic Good characters approach good from an entirely individualistic standpoint. "Give me liberty or give me death!" Freedom is the highest virtue of the CG mindset. Any percieved abuse of power (real or imagined) is challenged and torn down, if possible. "Because Governments should be afraid of their people..." Of course, sometimes tearing down the man doesn't really help as much as we'd like to think. "You can't help the wage earner by tearing down the wage payer." -Abraham Lincoln Even V's methods cause wide-spread injury and chaos. Does it have a good result? Sure! But were their methods (maybe longer and more "lawful") that would have saved lives? Maybe. Maybe not. The world may never know. I'll just say this, leave morals and ethics to the philosophers. Kant doesn't play D&D. Why do we waste precious game time on such arguments? Why? I think it's because we just want to have something to argue about. Alignment: Causing more arguments in D&D than anything else. (Btw, those were awesome inspirational posters. I'm thinking about trying to print a few off.)
pres_man 12-31-06, 01:01 AM	Next time a player of a CN PC tries to justify the slaughter of innocents point out to them: ... Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. ... People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. ...
Stormbrand 12-31-06, 01:58 AM	It is called sarcasm sometimes its hard to understand with text, I wasn't insulting you, I was making fun of paladins, who I still state as being retarded. Though you do have to admitt you were pretty whiny that you can't smite CN... I'd disagree, I think I wasn't making such a big thing of it. But no hard feelings.
Stormbrand 12-31-06, 02:02 AM	Next time a player of a CN PC tries to justify the slaughter of innocents point out to them: So what about slaad? I have never known them to have compunctions against killing the innocent.
Vikjunk 12-31-06, 03:10 AM	Next time a player of a CN PC tries to justify the slaughter of innocents point out to them: Innocent is in the eye of the beholder. Like my Druid example, I doubt a Druid would see the villagers as innocent if when they are harming his forest they would end up hurting the fey and other creatures that live in forest he calls home as well. And to the Druid the villagers are evil and might attack them to protect his home as were the Paladin would see the Druid as evil for attacking the village. Like I said, a good or lawful character would most likely first try to reason village first as were a chaotic natural might attack first since either they feel that it would be useless to try to reason with the villagers or he is more worried saving his home to even think about finding a peaceful option first. Problem is people are looking at this way to black and white. There are going to be circumstances were even good characters would be out to kill each other. Be it a war between nations, both groups are trying to retrieve an artifact that they feel that their side is the rightful owner, despot over a needed resource that each side needs to survive, ect.
Knight9910 12-31-06, 05:22 AM	Oh God, what have I done? King Bulba, read the player's handbook again sometime. First, read the description of Detect Evil. Anyone who's evil gives off an aura. Outsiders and clerics and whatnot just have stronger auras. Also, look at the description of lawful. Lawful means you follow the law, yes. It does NOT mean you follow EVERY law no matter what. If some evil tyrant made a law that said "You have to kill the first person you see every day" a paladin would NOT do it and no, he would not lose his paladin abilities for not following the law. A paladin's lawfulness doesn't even necesarilly mean he cares about ANY mortal law. It could mean he follows the laws of the gods, or it could just be because of his strict adherance to the oath he took as a paladin to always do good. Does that mean law and good can never come into conflict? No. Of course not. But if you expect any of us to believe they can never work ever...well, maybe YOU'RE the one with the 6 intelligence.
Witch 12-31-06, 05:34 AM	Upon reading and accepting those definitions. A mass murderer would more likely be lawful rather than chaotic. Sure, maybe a chaotic person might choose to sacrifice the town's people in order to get something from the situation, but it's only one of the multiple plans that he would consider. Both of which are evil though. Why would a mass murderer be lawful? If that lawful creature valued the concept of survival of the fitest. Everyone who's weaker than me will perish. Everytime that's what the lawful evil creature beleives, and would act appopriately. But the chaotic evil creature would only do so if it were convenient for him, and well... if he chose that action over doing something else to accomplish his goals. Survival of the Fittest is in fact the main theme and ideal of the abyss, ironically, which rather ruins the entire theory. Mass murderers tend to be chaotic evil, unless they do so by proxy, i.e. dictators.
Sphyre 12-31-06, 05:44 AM	Survival of the Fittest is in fact the main theme and ideal of the abyss, ironically, which rather ruins the entire theory. Mass murderers tend to be chaotic evil, unless they do so by proxy, i.e. dictators. That doesn't exactly exclude survival of the fittest being something that lawful beings would consider. Although, I do recall a bit about the psychological profiling of serial killers, and do agree that their thought process may be what in D&D terms might be said as chaotic evil. Albeit, what drives evil to kill is sometimes desire, and neither law nor chaos influences desire.
Witch 12-31-06, 05:46 AM	Law influences methods and goals - Lawful Evil doesn't have a particular desire to kill. It has a desire to oppress and dominate.
Sphyre 12-31-06, 05:47 AM	That's more true of Devils in specific not neccesarily the alignment of Lawful Evil as a whole.
Witch 12-31-06, 05:58 AM	Devils are the personification of the alignment - they are Lawful Evil. If you do differently from them, you're simply not as Lawful or not as Evil.
Sphyre 12-31-06, 02:13 PM	Then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Vikjunk 12-31-06, 02:32 PM	Devils are the personification of the alignment - they are Lawful Evil. If you do differently from them, you're simply not as Lawful or not as Evil. I wouldn't say that is necessarily true, since oppressing and dominating would seem to be more of a goal for an independent Lawful Evil character. As were a character can be Lawful Evil because of his dedication to a group or cause without have moral quails in taking extreme measures to do what needs to be done for its success. Like a servant of a lord that is willing to hire assassins and sabotages for serious threats to his lord would be considered Lawful Evil even though he doesn’t necessarily want his lord to be a dominant force. He just wants his lord to be happy and is willing to do almost anything to see that it happens.
Witch 12-31-06, 02:44 PM	And there's devils out there who promote that kind of behavior. My list of devilish characteristics might have been too small - but serial killers are generally chaotic evil, not lawful evil.
Oswald Krato 12-31-06, 08:44 PM	Chaos is nearsighted, and Law is farsighted. Chaos doesn't necessarily look to the results of actions: Han shooting first and shooting to kill is Chaotic Neutral. By Battle of Endor he's Chaotic Good--but you'd better believe he's not a paragon of CG--he's become a bit more lawful. Chaos says change. Chaos won't go to government to influence them about the law, Chaos will circumvent it. Chaos doesn't care about following rules or orders. It may just be me, but I see Lawful Good as the "default" alignment and everything else as derivatives of that. The absence of order/stability (law) is chaos. The absence of good is evil. If you define Lawfulness and Goodness, you can define anything else as a change from absolutes. Chaos...how else can I tangentiate about chaos? It seems to me like alignment is just another mechanic anyway, a way to figure out what the teams are in a game of four-way soccer, if you will. Chaos. Aside from Emeralds (come on, someone had to make the reference)...AHA! Sonic is Chaotic. Charging headlong into situations because it feels like the right thing to do.
King Bulba 01-01-07, 02:42 AM	Chaos is nearsighted, and Law is farsighted. Chaos doesn't necessarily look to the results of actions: Han shooting first and shooting to kill is Chaotic Neutral. By Battle of Endor he's Chaotic Good--but you'd better believe he's not a paragon of CG--he's become a bit more lawful. Chaos says change. Chaos won't go to government to influence them about the law, Chaos will circumvent it. Chaos doesn't care about following rules or orders. It may just be me, but I see Lawful Good as the "default" alignment and everything else as derivatives of that. The absence of order/stability (law) is chaos. The absence of good is evil. If you define Lawfulness and Goodness, you can define anything else as a change from absolutes. Chaos...how else can I tangentiate about chaos? It seems to me like alignment is just another mechanic anyway, a way to figure out what the teams are in a game of four-way soccer, if you will. I disagree with the majority of this. Why is law so farsighted? Law is still run by people who can be just as near or far sighted as the individual. It sounds like you are saying chaos is near sighted so law must be farsighted but that is a false premis, both could be near sighted. I gave some serious examples on how law can be nearsighted earlier. I think you are defining chaos wrong for DnD. Chaos in DnD doesn't mean change. It means focus on the individual. CG looks out for the independence of everyone, then for him or herself. CN looks out for itself but not at the cost of others, while CE looks out for himself even at the cost of others, and often especially if its so. That isn't about change at all, it's about the individual. Interesting thing to think about, can someone can be evil and yet never have done an evil act because he has never had the chance to take advantage of someone else? Law means focus in order. More specificly order is authoritative control over people. Mind control is VERY lawful. The best example of what I can think of an lawful society is a Bee's nest or an ant colony. Everyone has a purpose, everyone is always doing something, there is harmony within the colony and interestingly enough only the queens opinion matters and everyone follows her command. I will comment more on order below... King Bulba, read the player's handbook again sometime. First, read the description of Detect Evil. If you read the whole thread you know that what I said was my opinion of how it should be, I slightly mis stated it at first but corrected myself later in another post. RAW says im wrong, and I fully admit it but then again RAW is retarded and doesn't make much sense. That fact that there is an alignment thread on these boards at all times shows that there are SERIOUS problem with alignment. The monk is all about "order" if you read the flavor text, but that has little to do with order as discribed in the PHB. Monks don't have to give a crying Buck about laws or government or authority to it, but they are personally very organized. The monk can easily ignores honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, they though are very reliable, determined and personally organized. Alignment just isn't crisp and clear as intended so the "grey" always causes problems. This isn't the only example of alignment conflicting and I'm still only talking about the PHB...
kelvinaw273 01-02-07, 11:35 AM	Law is all about logic, self-disciplin and process. Lawful people like to have a process - a system - within which they sit. Today should progress like yesterday, and so should tomorrow. Law is about being concentrated, focused and disiplined. Chaos is all about change, intuition, and results. Chaotic people don't like to be tied down with rules, or pigeonholed into catagories. They want to just be themselves, regardless of anyone else's ideas. Chaos is about being creative, dynamic and adventurous. Good and evil fundamentally come down to empathy or the lack of it - the good person has empathy, leading to compassion and altruism. The evil person has none and so does not care for others other than as tools - or worse, actually enjoys the suffering of others. The best example in popular literature I can think of for a Paladin - and an intelligent one - is Captain Carrot of the Ankh-Morpock City Watch (Terry Pratchet: Guards! Guards!, Men-at-Arms, Jingo, The Fifth Elephant, Feet of Clay, Night Watch, Thud!). As it is in one book phrased: Carrot was simple, not stupid. You had to be a very clever person to be as simple as Carrot.
Anaxander 01-02-07, 01:57 PM	Chaos is nearsighted, and Law is farsighted. In fact, the PH states as a negative example of law a character which is closeminded and a bigot. So law can also be nearsighted.
High Octane 01-02-07, 02:42 PM	Chaotic = NOW! Lawful = In due time....
High Octane 01-02-07, 02:44 PM	In fact, the PH states as a negative example of law a character which is closeminded and a bigot. So law can also be nearsighted. Actually, I see it as so farsighted they cant see whats in front of them, so they are blind to the truth.
Anaxander 01-02-07, 02:51 PM	Actually, I see it as so farsighted they cant see whats in front of them, so they are blind to the truth. So buying glasses makes you neutral?
Witch 01-02-07, 02:54 PM	Why do people make things so difficult? Planning things isn't particularly lawful - Chaotic people will plan as well. They'll just think that plans can be changed on the spot. Lawful people would have several contingencies running, to which they can divert if the initial plan goes wrong. My small overview of alignment: Evil: hurting innocents Good: protecting innocents Law: tradition, the hierarchy Chaos: change, the individual
Sphyre 01-02-07, 03:25 PM	Why do people make things so difficult? Because people want to understand the intracacies of the concept, rather than state one example of such an alignment. For example I agree with all of your examples, yet I also beleive they encompass a bit more. For example, I think Lawful doesn't neccesarily have to be according to tradition nor a heirarchy. But, that may just be a difference in our opinions of the alignment system.
High Octane 01-02-07, 03:31 PM	So buying glasses makes you neutral? ......sure.
Witch 01-02-07, 03:41 PM	Because people want to understand the intracacies of the concept, rather than state one example of such an alignment. For example I agree with all of your examples, yet I also beleive they encompass a bit more. For example, I think Lawful doesn't neccesarily have to be according to tradition nor a heirarchy. But, that may just be a difference in our opinions of the alignment system. I believe that my statements are general guidelines - not black-and-white. There's room for nuances within those. A few lawful tendencies don't necessarily make you a lawful person, for example.
High Octane 01-02-07, 03:54 PM	I believe that my statements are general guidelines - not black-and-white. There's room for nuances within those. A few lawful tendencies don't necessarily make you a lawful person, for example. Thats the thing. What DOES make a character lawful or chaotic? Its fairly easy to have 1 or 2 actions rated as chaotic or lawful, but what makes a lawful character lawful and a chaotic character chaotic? THAT is why its complicated and cant be reduced to a blurb.
Witch 01-02-07, 03:57 PM	General behavior. Boards information generally doesn't suffice, as you don't see the character in action enough. You only see a shallow depiction.
King Bulba 01-02-07, 09:16 PM	Thats the thing. What DOES make a character lawful or chaotic? Its fairly easy to have 1 or 2 actions rated as chaotic or lawful, but what makes a lawful character lawful and a chaotic character chaotic? What to know the answer? It cant be answered since different people value alignment differently. A characters alignment is like being on a scale, the thing is the same action weighs differently depending on whom you ask. The player has his opinion, the DM his, from a game standpoint each god has his or her opinion as well, well technicly its objective :rolleyes: but the gods would really reject it as herasy. Conflict always ensues since the DM lays down the final word what the objective is (not that the gods would follow it IMO) but he doesn't have to actully play it. His opinion can screw up and cause conflict with the players since the players are affected by it and dont see good/evil and law/chaos the same way the DM does. The DM doesn't have to worry about actully playing it in the long term since his chars are all temporary. The whole thing is asking for trouble if you ask me.
pres_man 01-03-07, 10:55 AM	What to know the answer? It cant be answered since different people value alignment differently. A characters alignment is like being on a scale, the thing is the same action weighs differently depending on whom you ask. The player has his opinion, the DM his, from a game standpoint each god has his or her opinion as well, well technicly its objective :rolleyes: but the gods would really reject it as herasy. Conflict always ensues since the DM lays down the final word what the objective is (not that the gods would follow it IMO) but he doesn't have to actully play it. His opinion can screw up and cause conflict with the players since the players are affected by it and dont see good/evil and law/chaos the same way the DM does. The DM doesn't have to worry about actully playing it in the long term since his chars are all temporary. The whole thing is asking for trouble if you ask me. Or a group could be reasonable and discuss the issue before play begins and later as issues arise. By the way, in standard play, the deities do not define the alignments, instead they are defined by them.
King Bulba 01-03-07, 05:37 PM	Or a group could be reasonable and discuss the issue before play begins and later as issues arise. By the way, in standard play, the deities do not define the alignments, instead they are defined by them. I dont think you really can figure out the weight of EACH and EVERY action possible in the game let alone talk about it with the group. Talking about how alignment is going to be may sharpen the boarders but there is still grey between DM and PCs. It comes down to the DM deciding on the fly. As to objective alignment I said technicly there is objective alignment, just that the gods would ignore it. I know RAW doesn't mention this but it is very logical. If you have not been around me long (not saying your inexperianced, just not around me) well I think RAW is stupid. It is only there to be a common ground between the infinate number of house rules, which exist because RAW is retarded.
pres_man 01-04-07, 09:43 AM	I dont think you really can figure out the weight of EACH and EVERY action possible in the game let alone talk about it with the group. Talking about how alignment is going to be may sharpen the boarders but there is still grey between DM and PCs. It comes down to the DM deciding on the fly. Why? Sure some decisions have to be made on the fly, but why shouldn't the group (DM and players) discuss issues once the session is over or between sessions (email, phone call, hanging out)? If a person can't explain themselves and why they believe that a certain action had certain weight, perhaps they should defer to those that can. Frankly, when anyone claims the DM has total authority on anything effecting the PCs, I question how much of a group activity they are involved in. As to objective alignment I said technicly there is objective alignment, just that the gods would ignore it. I guess I don't understand what you mean by "ignore it". If Pelor puts a baby orc on a pike that is still an evil act even though Pelor is doing it. If Pelor puts enough baby orcs on pikes he may shift from being good to being evil, and use deities do shift, see Lolth or Laduguer for example. So deities can not ignore the ramifications of aligned actions anymore than mortals can, this is because in standard D&D good is not defined by the good deities (though they may be examples of it), instead they are defined by what it means to be good. If you have not been around me long (not saying your inexperianced, just not around me) well I think RAW is stupid. It is only there to be a common ground between the infinate number of house rules, which exist because RAW is retarded. Well you certainly have every right to believe that. I think that position is a bit close-minded myself, but hey to each his own. By the way, if the RAW is so dumb, why not just create your own game system?
Knight9910 01-04-07, 09:54 AM	To quote Ghandi: The difference between a lawful person and an unlawful person is that when a lawful person encounters a law he disagrees with he breaks that law and then he accepts the punishment. When an unlawful person encounters a law he disagrees with he breaks that law and then he tries to escape punishment.
Vestigial_Thumb 01-04-07, 11:50 AM	To quote Vestigial_Thumb: Trying to generalize about chaos is like trying to manually fill a tube with toothpaste. You will fail and you're a dumbass for trying.
Anaxander 01-04-07, 02:03 PM	Nice generalisation. Chaos is about unpredictability. Chaotic characters make ad hoc decisions, based on specific circumstances, while a lawful character acts through an individual or collective code which guides all his actions.
zvbxrpl 01-04-07, 05:41 PM	To quote Vestigial_Thumb: Trying to generalize about chaos is like trying to manually fill a tube with toothpaste. You will fail and you're a dumbass for trying. QFT