| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1zombiegleemaxOct 17, 2005 22:11:56 | Preface To ensure we are starting on the same page with the same definitions, I will begin at a very basic level. This is probably a review for most RPG players. In standard D&D or d20 games there are two axes of alignments, the Good-Evil (G-E) axis and the Lawful-Chaotic (L-C) axis. Each axis has a middle or Neutral component, please note, the two neutrals are not the same. Combining the two axes gives an attribute ranging from Lawful Good, often presumed the 'best' or 'most good' alignment, to Chaotic Evil which is often considered the 'worst' or 'most evil' alignment. I will begin each entry with a dictionary definition and then a description of how I believe the alignment should affect characters' personalities and actions. All definitions are from www.dictionary.com and are limited to the entries pertaining to aspects of personality or philosophy. This is an attempt to clarify game alignments, give them measurable definitions, and relate them to the game society which surrounds each character. Society, Community, Nation, State, and Race are used interchangeably with relation to alignments. Each individual will identify with and, to an extent determined by alignment, comply with rules when the individual considers themselves a part of the community. As social animals, humans (and by extrapolation all other PC races) will attempt to work with others within the community...to a point. How far that point strays from the individual's own desires is what alignment is about. In short, a lawful character is one who follows his community's laws and customs even when doing so is contrary to his personal desires. A chaotic character will follow his personal whim no matter what law and custom prescribe. Good characters are selfless, putting the needs of others ahead of personal desires. Evil characters take pleasure in others' failures, miseries, and pains. Please note, this is a commentary on alignments in Dungeons and Dragons, not a philosophical treatise on the nature of good, evil, law, chaos, or neutrality. Per the PHB, page 103, “Good and evil are not philosophical concepts...They are the forces that define the cosmos.” Also, to paraphrase the PHB, alignment is a tool not a straitjacket. The Absolutes Good In games terms, a good aligned character will seek to do the best he can for another while preventing harm to innocents. He wants to do right and will often choose paths benefiting society or other individuals in place of personal benefits. At the extreme, he may sacrifice his life to accomplish a goal he considers necessary for another's well being. A good society, community, or nation seeks to maximize individual happiness at a macro level. It does not do anything for any single individual so much as for a mass of individuals. Good societies are seldom stratified (there is a significant amount of social mobility) and even the poorest may create a better standard of living for themselves and their offspring. Neutral (Good/Evil axis) In game terms, a neutral character is indifferent to her society's standards of right and wrong. She may be selfish or generous but either is at her whim. She will seldom consider what may benefit society when choosing her actions but will only inflict intentional harm on others (or society) to gain a commensurate benefit. A neutral society neither creates opportunity or prevents it. Individual happiness is balanced with the stability of the community itself. While not necessarily stratified, there is a large difference in lifestyle between the rich and the poor. Evil In game terms, an evil character is disruptive, destructive, or injurious to both individuals and society. He neither cares about society's well being or any other individual's. He may inflict intentional harm on others with or without personal gain. Control over others is a common goal, another is destruction or dissolution. He may cause harm because he believes it's necessary or for simple pleasure. An evil society, community, or nation seeks to maximize a few individual's happiness at the expense of the majority. It is not necessarily stratified, but there is a wide gap between the rulers' standards of living and that of the poor. Social mobility, when available, often means displacing one's superiors. Lawful In game terms, a lawful character obeys the customs and laws of her society. The only time she is willing to 'break' a society's law is when she considers herself outside of or above that society. She will obey the customs and laws of any society, community, nation, or race which she considers legitimate and pertaining to herself. A lawful society is extremely stratified. Any economic or social mobility at all is unusual. Every facet of life is regulated. Neutral (Law/Chaos axis) In game terms, a neutral character is indifferent to society's customs and laws. He may follow customs or laws when convenient, but it is at his whim. He will seldom consider what society desires or commands when choosing his actions but will only deviate from society's customs or laws to gain a commensurate benefit. A neutral society regulates most major undertakings whether economic or social but seldom regulates individuals beyond the basics. The society may be stratified, but some amount of social and economic mobility is always allowed. Chaotic In game terms, chaotic characters are the ultimate nonconformists. She refuses (or is unable) to follow society's customs or laws. Whether or not her actions are legal or customary never even enters her mind. Her whim or convenience trumps any external stimulus. A chaotic society is never stratified and any regulation is liaise faire at best and honored by violation at worst. Economic and social mobility are the rule, so much so that stability is often compromised. Even when regulations apply, violations are accepted as long as you're not caught. The Alignments: Or what this means to PC and community. Please remember, no person or character is perfect. A single mistake or violation of alignment principles does not indicate a change of alignment. A pattern of actions or consistent violations of principle does indicate a change. Also note, Lawful Good is not equal to Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Neutral/Evil is not equal to Chaotic Stupid. I've added descriptions of both Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid for comparison. They are not acceptable alignments. Lawful Good (LG) Lawful Good characters seek to prevent or remediate harm within the limits of law. They do not break the customs or laws of societies or communities they identify with nor do they take the law into their own hands. Vigilantism is a chaotic act. At the same point, they will not allow malicious or mistaken laws to force them into evil acts. Neutral Good (NG) Neutral Good characters seek 'good' without regard to law but are generally law abiding unless there is a reason to go outside of the law. They will attempt to prevent or remediate harm when possible. They will either follow the letter or the law or shatter every provision based on their personal opinion of whether or not it is good. Chaotic Good (CG) Chaotic Good characters seek to prevent or remediate harm regardless of the law. Some take pleasure in showing how laws are harmful and insufficient while others are merely ignorant or careless of the law. They often justify activities by the 'good' results. True Neutral (N) True Neutral characters care neither about law or good and evil. Above all, they seek to be left in peace or to have those in their care left in peace. They often consider themselves outside of most 'human' societies. Characters of this alignment are arguably the least social characters. Lawful Evil (LE) Lawful Evil characters use the law to their personal advantage as much as possible. They will create or twist laws to gain a benefit and will force others to obey their laws or whims. This is a tyrannical and controlling personality. Neutral Evil (NE) Neutral Evil characters seek wealth and power within society. They willingly break the law if they can get away with it, but only when doing so is advantageous. Chaotic Evil (CE) Chaotic Evil characters seek wealth and power through destructive means. They are can be subtle manipulators, outwardly compliant with society's laws while inside they laugh at those who obey the law in fact or lawbreakers with a blatant disregard for anything and anyone other than themselves. Self gratification is their sole goal. [u]The 'Stupids'[/u] Lawful Stupid Lawful Stupid characters think they are lawful good, but commit extreme acts of vigilante 'justice' in the name of law or completely disregard applicable laws in the name of good. Please note, punishing a thief yourself is a chaotic act. A lawful person would either turn an apprehended thief in to the authorities or inform the authorities of a witnessed crime. Chaotic Stupid Chaotic Stupid characters are those who believe their chaotic alignment (and lack of good alignment) justifies any action they desire. Please note, CN characters will only intentionally harm another if they stand to gain a commensurate benefit. Even CE characters realize they have to work within society and generally obey their society's defacto rules if not the written rules. Drow manage to live, work, and plan together enough to be a major threat to other races and communities. You as CN or CE should be able to do the same. |
| #2gilean_dupDec 13, 2005 7:22:57 | In standard D&D or d20 games there are two axes of alignments, the Good-Evil (G-E) axis and the Lawful-Chaotic (L-C) axis. Each axis has a middle or Neutral component, please note, the two neutrals are not the same. Combining the two axes gives an attribute ranging from Lawful Good, often presumed the 'best' or 'most good' alignment, to Chaotic Evil which is often considered the 'worst' or 'most evil' alignment. Just to make clear, all goods are equally good. NG is the goodest if there is nay such distinction. Democracy doesn't a truth make. In short, a lawful character is one who follows his community's laws and customs even when doing so is contrary to his personal desires. A chaotic character will follow his personal whim no matter what law and custom prescribe. Good characters are selfless, putting the needs of others ahead of personal desires. Evil characters take pleasure in others' failures, miseries, and pains. True enough. A good society, community, or nation seeks to maximize individual happiness at a macro level. It does not do anything for any single individual so much as for a mass of individuals. Good societies are seldom stratified (there is a significant amount of social mobility) and even the poorest may create a better standard of living for themselves and their offspring. That would be LG or NG society. CG would help precisely the single individuals. A neutral society neither creates opportunity or prevents it. Individual happiness is balanced with the stability of the community itself. Neural on the chaos-law axis, not good-evil one. While not necessarily stratified, there is a large difference in lifestyle between the rich and the poor. Or, not LG society. In game terms, an evil character is disruptive, destructive, or injurious to both individuals and society. He neither cares about society's well being or any other individual's. LE very much cares for society. See the German dictator. He may cause harm because he believes it's necessary or for simple pleasure. An addition: a belief that life is a zero-sum game, or that what others have is away from oneself. A lawful society is extremely stratified. Any economic or social mobility at all is unusual. Every facet of life is regulated. A bit extreme, but true. Her whim or convenience trumps any external stimulus. If "whim" or "convenience" include sympathy or sadism, yes. They can still be good or evil, too. liaise faire laissez-faire? I've added descriptions of both Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid for comparison. They are not acceptable alignments. But a personality like one of them is acceptable. They often justify activities by the 'good' results. That sounds a bit like you wouldn't think that such behaviour is actually good. It is. As good as LG. True Neutral (N) No. First, balance. Active true neutrality and the desire to stop any alignment from dominating. Characters of this alignment are arguably the least social characters. Could you elaborate this thesis? I am very interested about the reasoning that can lead to this. Self gratification is their sole goal. Not by definition, but usually, yes. |
| #3zombiegleemaxDec 16, 2005 18:40:56 | PrefaceI will begin each entry with a dictionary definition and then a description of how I believe the alignment should affect characters' personalities and actions. All definitions are from www.dictionary.com and are limited to the entries pertaining to aspects of personality or philosophy. Do you really think that this is a good way to start? Why not just paraphrase the PHB definitions? Your character alignment definitions are either outright incorrect, overly specific, or over-statement according to the PHB. I'll confine my commentary to the society stuff. A good society, community, or nation seeks to maximize individual happiness at a macro level. It does not do anything for any single individual so much as for a mass of individuals. At what point, exactly, did 'good' become utilitarianism (and a pretty wretched version of it, at that). Good societies are made up of good characters, right? We know that good characters have [i]"a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." (PHB, p104). If that's the case, then why would those characters collectively decide to void that dignity when it comes to making moral decisions? Good societies are seldom stratified (there is a significant amount of social mobility) and even the poorest may create a better standard of living for themselves and their offspring. Why does that have anything to do with being good? I can envisage strict caste-based societies where social mobility is a definite no-no, but at the same time, everyone is compassionate and selfless to the core - surely that's a paradigm 'good' society, by D&D standards. Standards of living, too, may have little to do with the concerns of a good society: they could be consumed with the quest for better standards of dying. Finally, I don't see anything particularly good about inheritance, especially not the way you've cashed out good. Aren't good characters selfless? Don't they care about everyone, not just their offspring? Surely, the good act - if we're using your definition - wouldn't be to leave one's estate to ones children, but to the community at large? A neutral society neither creates opportunity or prevents it. Individual happiness is balanced with the stability of the community itself. While not necessarily stratified, there is a large difference in lifestyle between the rich and the poor. Why would a chaotic society care about 'stability'? A neutral society could be permissive or closed up, depending on its ethics. Morally, you can expect justice (either legislative or natural) but not welfare in a neutral society. An evil society, community, or nation seeks to maximize a few individual's happiness at the expense of the majority. It is not necessarily stratified, but there is a wide gap between the rulers' standards of living and that of the poor. Social mobility, when available, often means displacing one's superiors. This is too specific. An evil society could have no social mobility, no gap in standards of living, and have nobody happy in it, if it were a society enslaved to some sort of ideal of racial destiny. (You might claim that this isn't evil... but let's just say that I wouldn't want to live there.) A lawful society is extremely stratified. Any economic or social mobility at all is unusual. Every facet of life is regulated. I think you're over-stating things a little here. I'm also concerned with what you mean by 'regulation'. Is that regulation by 'agents of the state', or are you including things like the bonds of tradition? (If you don't include the latter, then some fantasy samurai societies, including Rokugan, [u]The 'Stupids'[/u] Err... no. That's not necessarily the case. A Lawful Good character who did not regard the authorities as competent (either practically, ethically or morally) would be acting lawfully to punish a thief themselves. So long as they're consistent in their behaviour (ie. don't let off PCs, etc.) then the Stupid here is the DM telling them that they're not Lawful. Chaotic Stupid Are you telling me that Chaotic Neutral characters don't act on a whim without thinking about the consequences? Stupid indeed! |
| #4stev_berenDec 17, 2005 19:51:30 | Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral? |
| #5korimyr_the_ratDec 21, 2005 13:50:37 | True Neutral is easily as much about indifference as about balance-- and it's far from an anti-social alignment. True Neutrals care about their neighbors, as long as they don't have to do much for them; they may be indifferent to the laws and mores of society, but not to their consequences, which they care very much about. I think most Neutral characters are would-be Goods who lack the motivation (or courage) to actively pursue good and oppose evil. I also think you tend to conflate Law and Good and Chaos and Evil a little too much-- but generally less than most people seem to. Overall, though, I think your analysis is pretty accurate. The biggest thing is to remind people that alignments are not absolute, and that most characters have some Neutral tendencies and areas where they break with their alignments. |
| #6lordmongooseDec 24, 2005 21:56:54 | A note about the True Neutral: There are several kinds of true neutral. One is the "wishy-washy"; the person who cannot commit to a single outlook on life. Another is the balance-seeker, which seeks to prevent either law or chaos, good or evil, from growing dominant over its opponent. Another is the one mentioned in the OP: the disinterested recluse, who is neutral because he or she does not care about those higher principles. However, this type, due to its extremely self-focused nature, is more likely to lean towards evil than good. |
| #7zombiegleemaxDec 27, 2005 11:06:34 | No. I'm not saying you're wrong, but attempting to exert control over the workings of a society does not really seem True Neutral to me. Of course I could be wrong. Most people would consider the Borg Lawful Evil, but it could well be argued that it's Lawful Neutral, which I'm sure is how they view themselves. Another question, whose perception determines alignment? A character could truly believe they're performing a good act, while to others it is evil. Is killing an evil creature automatically considered a good act? Does the nature of the killing factor in? Would torturing a demon to get information that would save many people be considered good, evil, or neutral? As noted, in D&D alignment is a cosmic force. However, in each campaign the DM will have to define what is good and evil...it won't necessarily be the same for each. If a player begins to kill all the Kobold children and the DM says "that is considered an evil act" the player will have to accept that in the campaign his character is in that it is indeed an evil act, and not argue with the DM trying to rationalize why it's not (and in fact, in real life many people will rationalize an evil act...that doesn't make it less evil, but it allows them to go on with their lives with minimal guilty feelings). |
| #8squirrelloidJan 03, 2006 20:04:12 | I will maintain that many of the alignments have multiple ways in which they can be played, all of which are equally accurate. I'll use True Neutral as an example: (1) Balance - the character actively strives for a balance between self and others, regulation and freedom. Aristotle's all things in moderation. (2) Balance - To the character, Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, these are real forces which must be held in equal opposition and with none dominating the others. This is an active, global view rather than a personal self-motivated view of 1. Whereas 1 tries not to do any one of them too much, 2 tries to prevent any of them from dominating him or herself too much. (Subtle philosophical distinction, but real). (3) Apathy - the character has ambiguous feelings about good/evil or law/chaos. ... I will also disagree that C/N played as random action is entirely inappropriate (e.g., C/random). Surely a Priest of Chaos is a perfectly valid character to play, where spontaneity is valued, and anything could be expected. The appropriate comparison alignment is L/N where L is interpreted as structure and routine, up to the point that the character always wakes up at the same minute, rolls out of bed the same way, and must be allowed to perform his/her morning rituals in a specified order or there will be hell to pay. Both of these are perfectly acceptable 'platonic' alignments with limited archetypes (generally priests). I will agree that Awful Stupid is a terrible alignment to play. The appropriate companion alignment is not C/random, but C/E of "I must kick fluffy bunnies because I’m evil". It makes just as much a parody of evil as awful stupid makes of good, and is at least as grating on the sensibilities of rational people. |