@Zyzzogeton - No. That isn't what lawful means. At least not in my view. Lawful (or chaotic) are independent of legal/judicial system. My point was you can be lawful and flaunt the laws of the land or you can be chaotic and be the staunchest defender of it. Because they aren't correlated.
It's all about your individual code.
I mostly agree, but perhaps not 100%.
Apologies for the random political theory, but when it comes to flaunting the law, what stands out for me is the difference between civil disobedience in the traditional sense and "true" rebellion. True rebellion is Chaotic; it's flaunting the law and trying to get away without punishment because you think it's illegitimate and shouldn't apply to you or anyone else.
Civil disobedience is something different. At its heart, it involves purposefully breaking the law with the intent to improve it--and respecting it enough to accept the consequences. I'm thinking of Socrates's Apology now, where he refuses to flee Athens even though it means death, because he accepted the state's authority over him, even if he disagreed with absolutely everything.
To me, that's the difference between Lawful and Chaotic. You don't need to follow laws to be Lawful, but if you're denying the authority of the system, there's probably something wrong with your alignment.
@Zyzzegeton - I agree. Anyone who respects the authority of a legal system is going to want a system of laws in place. And yeah, that's not exclusive to a lawful alignment, though the neutrals are probably not going to want to die for it.
Wanting the concept of laws abolished is definitely an equally strong statement. I've never said that Lawful is about strict morals and chaotic is about the lack thereof, though. Chaotic Good can be as fanatical as Lawful Good, and probably scarier. They're less constrained by the concept of the greater good--they're more likely to let the world burn if they think it's the right decision.
That really doesn't change anything. Lawful characters still want a system of laws in place. And that is not exclusive to a strict moral code.
Because wanting the concept of laws abolished is also a strict moral code.
Not sure about what others say, BUT....
The concept that I've been trying to communicate is that The Law/Chaos axis is not related to law. A chaotic person might very well be an avid supporter of the local legal system in the same way that a Lawful character might disagree with and despise that same legal system.
The differences between a lawful alignment and a Chaotic one have nothing to do with the local (or global) judicial system. Being Lawful or chaotic should have nothing what so ever to do with the government.
An alignment has, buy it's very nature, to be an internal moral code. That's what alignment is, who you are in the absence of outside stimulus. If some outside force acts upon you to MAKE you do one thing or another, it isn't YOUR alignment that is doing that. It's the circumstance.
If you are the type of lawful (or chaotic) person that believes in society and the local government, then sure you will uphold the laws. If your own personal code is such that it is at variance from government, then you won't care overmuch if you adhere to the laws of the land, REGARDLESS OF YOUR LAWFUL OR CHAOTIC LEANINGS.
It's true that a Lawful person believes in structure and order. this in NO WAY means that they support the government as any number of governments and legal systems may not be terribly ordered or designed to promote structure. Or they may be designed to support order and structure, but just not the order and structure that the individual believes in.
A chaotic person believes more in freedoms and individual pursuits. If the government promotes individual freedoms and frees up the people to pursue individual pursuits, a Chaotic person is going to be a staunch defender of that legal system.
Lawful does not equal the law. Chaotic does not equal anti-government.
I really need to stop coming to the thread. I don't know how many more saves I can make against this can of worms
If your reasoning is sound and you stay focused on the discussion on hand, you will not need to make any saves - you will be immune to the effects of unsound reasoning. However, not opening a can of worms is a wise thing to do
I interpret law and chaos as a polarity which is best defined by example, clustering sets of value words around the appropriate poles. I'll try to set it up like this:
Those lists of value words around the two poles could get much longer than that. Even our left-brain right-brain neurological brain structure demonstrates the two ways of interacting with the world. We could say left-brain dominant people are "lawful", and right-brain dominant people are "chaotic".
Usually "lawful" people follow the rules and obey most of the laws of the land in a society, but they're not defined by that, and exceptions abound.
Usually "chaotic" people break the rules whenever they can get away with it, and often rebel against established norms and hierarchies, but they're not defined by that, and exceptions abound.
There are often pairs of characters in fiction who personify the tension between the "lawful" and "chaotic" poles, especially in science fiction. Spock and McCoy from Star Trek come immediately to mind.
Finally, I like to remind people that Gary Gygax created the alignment system in order to classify game pieces for a war strategy game played on a hex board. It wasn't intended to be much different from having white pieces and black pieces in chess, along with, let's say, red pieces. (Although he gradually expanded the different "armies" for his game into nine "colors" instead of the three he started with - you could call them "white", "black", and all seven colors of the rainbow, instead of "lawful good", "chaotic evil", etc.)
Gygax objected to people trying to create serious moral philosophy out of his gaming system, and he often became very heated and angry in telling fans that he refused to argue philosophy with them when they were supposed to be asking him about D&D.
I interpret law and chaos as a polarity which is best defined by example, clustering sets of value words around the appropriate poles. I'll try to set it up like this:
Gygax objected to people trying to create serious moral philosophy out of his gaming system, and he often became very heated and angry in telling fans that he refused to argue philosophy with them when they were supposed to be asking him about D&D.
This seems an important perspective which comes close to the position of "you play alignments your way and I will play alignments my way". Regardless of our deeper thinking about this question as an aspect of life, whether or not we feel it is anywhere close to being adequately manifest in the game design of DnD or Baldur's Gate is a separate issue.
Part of my thinking about alignment stems from a curiosity about what it must have been like to be a learned member of the Mediterranean world 500BC-500AD. What the psychological effect of living in a polytheistic world might have been is fascinating.
The concept that I've been trying to communicate is that The Law/Chaos axis is not related to law.
Yes they do. Stop thinking locally. Lawful characters want a system. It doesn't have to be the current system. But they will want a system
A chaotic person might very well be an avid supporter of the local legal system
Not they won't be. That is neutral at best. Or Chaotic characters who convince themselves that it's the best they can realistically get.
In your example of Chaotic elves, you just described a group of vigilantes that just happen to be working towards the same goals
in the same way that a Lawful character might disagree with and despise that same legal system.
They'll still want a system of laws. As much as a chaotic character will not want them.
The differences between a lawful alignment and a Chaotic one have nothing to do with the local (or global) judicial system. Being Lawful or chaotic should have nothing what so ever to do with the government.
Except it does. The lawful chaotic scale refer to the presence or absence of order in the environment.
An alignment has, buy it's very nature, to be an internal moral code. That's what alignment is, who you are in the absence of outside stimulus.
As far as D&D is concerned, alignment governs how your character is supposed to act. Your character doesn't spend all day not doing anything. That's external. In D&D terms, alignment is pointless without the outside world.
If you are the type of lawful (or chaotic) person that believes in society and the local government, then sure you will uphold the laws. If your own personal code is such that it is at variance from government, then you won't care overmuch if you adhere to the laws of the land, REGARDLESS OF YOUR LAWFUL OR CHAOTIC LEANINGS.
Again stop limiting this to local laws.
Lawful characters who think they can influence the laws will try to bring about the laws they want. Chaotic characters in the same position will just bring down those laws period. This is external, and this is what D&D cares about.
It's true that a Lawful person believes in structure and order. this in NO WAY means that they support the government as any number of governments and legal systems may not be terribly ordered or designed to promote structure. Or they may be designed to support order and structure, but just not the order and structure that the individual believes in.
They will support A government.
A chaotic person believes more in freedoms and individual pursuits. If the government promotes individual freedoms and frees up the people to pursue individual pursuits, a Chaotic person is going to be a staunch defender of that legal system.
Chaotic isn't Chaotic Stupid. It just means they're tolerating the current system of laws because they can't do anything realistic about it.
Lawful does not equal the law. Chaotic does not equal anti-government.
Lawful equals A set of laws, Chaotic equals the absence of that. None of these alignments equal stupid. Not every Chaotic person is openly and actively anti-government because it's not easy to bring down the government. The method used to bring down systems of order can also conflict with their Good/Evil portion of their alignment.
If a Chaotic person is presented with a plan to bring down a system of order that they think will work and doesn't conflict with their Good/Evil alignment scale then they'll take it.
I've voted for option 3 because people are governed by their own laws priests and paladins especially a paladin is lawful good (a paladin is an easy example) so lets say dave is a paladin of lathander. and dave finds out that steve is a necromancer and dave follows steve into neverwinter. the law of the city protects steve from dave as he hasnt done anything wrong but dave is still fully within the rights of his allignment and the code of his god to outright murder steve even if it means breaking the law to do so. in my opinion at least.
alignment is a powerful thing that can make or break any campaign, i once ran a campaign where the main villain was a paladin and as such he was lawful good. the antagonist of a story doesn't have to be evil which can lead to great campaigns and alot of people dont get that, another example would be the game i'm in of pathfinder where im a neutral evil necromancer, people are confused by this because im helping people yet im evil. but anyway, before i ramble on. i think law means which ever law the character follows. be it a gods law or a cities law its what ever law the character chooses to accept
We should use Planescape:Torment as a basis on how actions effect alignment in DnD world:
I you act against what you know to be true ("I am Adahn.") you get chaotic. If you confront a (supposedly lawful, good) Deva betraying a Devil, you get lawful; if you betray a (definitely evil, but apparently lawful) Devil in your dealings you get chaotic-good. The same action can be good or evil, chaotic or lawful depending on INTENTION. (to Deionarra "[Lie] I love you." vs "[Truth] I love you.")
PST was a giant alignment simulator. Nothing like it has been done before or since.
(P.S. I voted #4, but I think BG bends toward #1.)
Exercise for the reader: Discuss the applications of the aforementioned alignment systems on the Three Laws of Robotics. (In particular, on the mandate of what is "good" for individuals vs the society.)
I think it is a big mistake to define Lawful and Chaotic through the character's relationship with external social structures. If you are LG that is a part of you, and does not change with the governments.
If you dropped a LG Paladin on a deserted island that has no social structure/government all by himself for two years, will he not still be LG during that period?
I think Lawful and Chaotic are qualities that come from within the character, that are likely to cause the character to react to a situation in a certain way. However, *what* the character does in a certain situation (ie living under a Government A, in Society B or on Deserted Island C) is not nearly as important in determining where he falls on the law-chaos scale as the *why*.
For example: Keldorn opposes the Cowled Wizards. Korgan opposes the Cowled Wizards. They are on the same side against a pretty bad system of rule. To say that Law-Chaos is defined by an existing government would imply that there is very little difference in the two characters (one LG the other CE), when we all know that this is not the case. Their personal values that led them to supporting that cause is what defines them on both scales.
Just for the interest of it all----the Lawfulness/Chaos axis can fruitfully be compared to a long discussed idea in Lit. Crit.: the dichotomy of Classical and Romantic ages. I also think Mahayana Buddhist ideas about the Middle Way [Mahdyamika Sutra] as finally being rooted in "Emptiness" which scrupulously avoids either of the two fundamental extremes--Eternalism and Nihilism are to the point.
Modern Theoretical Physics in its development of Complexity Theory is also deeply concerned with these issues. If I understand correctly, some in that field are proposing that what we call "Life" may necessarily involve regular oscillations between relative states of Crystallization and Chaos.
Part of my faith about the Future is that we will begin developing mathematical models of brain and endocrine systems that can be directly observed. Actual measurable facts sustained by repeatable experiments will eventually completely transform how we view almost all of our spiritual/religious/philosophical languages. Staying tuned.
@the_spyder Your point about the temerity of Gary Gygax in incorporating such profound concepts without spelling them out more specifically and making them a major element of the game--perhaps comparable to shorty saves or morale breaks--is good. That alignment theory is still so obviously open to various interpretations may actually be evidentially reflective of the broader RP community. Just sayin'
Within the current context [DnD-Baldur'sGate] however, the chief aspect of alignment theory must be IMO whether or not the game designers have done their job in a balanced satisfying way. If I can kill Drzzt and then go sell and steal a certain item in Nashkel and make donations until my Reputation is even better than before with the addition of a hefty bankroll....do Moorcockian alignments actually consequentially exist in the game except as a limitation on party compostition??
@Eadwyn_G8Keeper - I think there was an attempt to make the system viable when the DMG stated that alignment is supposed to be a continuum wherein all characters exist on all points at some time in their lives (or words to that effect). Kind of nebulous, but it gets the point across. Every character is going to act in a variety of different ways given any set of circumstances. These aren't air plane instructions.
But where it really falls down is in the fact that the entire game system wasn't supposed to be monopoly or checkers such that you roll the dice and move your race car around the board. it was supposed to be open and free form and merely suggested guidelines for the players (and DM) to take and use as they see fit, discarding the rest.
Alignment in particular. Someone who is of good alignment could do (or be forced to do, or do by accident) evil. it's part of the continuum. Chances are they will (Try to) do more good than evil, and will in all probability feel bad about the evil that they do, but these aren't card board cut-outs that only act one way.
The dichotemy of Law vs Chaos is something even murkier. If I play a lawful neutral Priest, in some views, I am not allowed to disagree with or violate the law of a corrupt and oppressive government, because I am lawful. The very differences between Church and State IRL in the US shows that reasonably lawful organizations can and (in some cases) Must be against the government.
Conversely there are extremely chaotic governments in the real world, that no self respecting chaotic would rail against.
But gone are the days when card board cutouts are used for characters in D&D. Everyone should play as they feel and not take someone else's ideals and concepts. If it makes you happy and you can have a valid internal justification for your actions based on alignment, play that way. Who cares if others disagree? Have fun with it.
Conversely there are extremely chaotic governments in the real world, that no self respecting chaotic would rail against.
Um, I'ma call oxymoron on that. Chaotic government? A government is by definition lawful. It is the place from which law comes. It could be evil, corrupt maybe, but chaotic? I think not. Could you give us an example of a government that, as you put it, I would never rail against?
Conversely there are extremely chaotic governments in the real world, that no self respecting chaotic would rail against.
Um, I'ma call oxymoron on that. Chaotic government? A government is by definition lawful. It is the place from which law comes. It could be evil, corrupt maybe, but chaotic? I think not. Could you give us an example of a government that, as you put it, I would never rail against?
The US judicial system is chaotic in the extreme. The way laws are put on the books, it is basically "It seemed like a good idea at the time" and they stand until someone else has a better idea, or challenges the original idea to such a degree that it gets voted down. Government officials are voted in by the will and whim of the people and are usually elected based on their ability to spend money rather than their ability to actually govern. And the US is one of the more Lawful governing bodies on the planet.
Take a look at some of the smaller countries where the government is a dictatorship not set up to promote society so much as to provide wealth and power to a very few. Take a look at governments where people are locked up or killed "By officials of the government" not because they break the laws, but because they piss someone off. Governments where they promote schools for teaching it's citizens how to undermine other countries political and economic systems. These are hardly "Lawful" in nature.
That's... Not chaotic, at least, not by the alignment system. That's just a fail. It's not purposeful, directional, or intentional. It's a disorganized bureaucracy, but it's not chaotic, @the_spyder
The US judicial system is chaotic in the extreme. The way laws are put on the books, it is basically "It seemed like a good idea at the time" and they stand until someone else has a better idea, or challenges the original idea to such a degree that it gets voted down. Government officials are voted in by the will and whim of the people and are usually elected based on their ability to spend money rather than their ability to actually govern. And the US is one of the more Lawful governing bodies on the planet.
What? Why would any Chaotic Good person, if they had the proper means to bring down this system want to keep that in place?
Even Chaotic Neutral and Evil people would do the same if they aren't among the ones in power.
Take a look at governments where people are locked up or killed "By officials of the government" not because they break the laws, but because they piss someone off. Governments where they promote schools for teaching it's citizens how to undermine other countries political and economic systems. These are hardly "Lawful" in nature.
And this appeals to Chaotic how exactly?
Also they are Lawful. Lawful isn't good, it isn't evil. It's structure and order, it doesn't matter what that structure and order is used to bring. This is why we have Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral. If Lawful was about justice, fairness, and quality then the only Lawful alignment there would be is Lawful Good and some specific cases of Lawful Neutral.
The dichotemy of Law vs Chaos is something even murkier. If I play a lawful neutral Priest, in some views, I am not allowed to disagree with or violate the law of a corrupt and oppressive government, because I am lawful. The very differences between Church and State IRL in the US shows that reasonably lawful organizations can and (in some cases) Must be against the government.
Just sayin'... You and I, Spyder, could probably write an interesting book. I had Presbyterian Missionaries [Japan] for grandparents who died when I was very young. They had come from some serious slave-owning forebears. My grandfather finally left Japan only months before Pearl Harbor.
On my Father's side [PHD-Organic Chemistry] there are 17th Cent Quakers who emigrated to Pennsylvania from Yorkshire during the devastation of Cromwell et al., eventually becoming Baptists in W. S. Carolina--a Piedmont region with relatively few slaves. But it spawned a very active KKK @1890, strongly supported by at least 2 of my Great-Uncles. From that side I also have Blacksmithing, Master Carpentry and Small-hold Agriculture in my blood as well as a High School Principal [the other-Freemason but not KKK- Grandpa].
Against this background my parents were among the core members of a semi-radical Presbyterian Church formed in the mid 1960s with the explicit goal of being an integrated congregation in North Carolina. Dad was the first Clerk of Session of this highly educated group with a number of theologian types among the 100+ founders.
And then I just so happened to get seriously involved with Eastern Religion---not going into details. This, after almost flunking out of college from playing too much Risk, Bridge-Poker, Avalon Hill wargames and, of course, the alcohol/drug thing which was fairly serious for 2 yrs.
So the question of Alignment carries a lot of weight for me. Particularly the passage from a system of Lawful Evil to the Promised Land of whatever ~and more particularly ~who shall have the authority to declare its realities.
@Zyzzogeton - I wasn't "Necessarily" saying that a chaotic would be in favor of the US Government (although why wouldn't they if they can make money hand over fist with little or no interference from same??), I was merely pointing out that "Government" and "Lawful" do not always go together.
But you have this misguided notion that a Lawful individual will agree with any government or any law just because it's prevalent or the biggest one out there. Lawful isn't Lawful Stupid.
But you have this misguided notion that a Lawful individual will agree with any government or any law just because it's prevalent or the biggest one out there. Lawful isn't Lawful Stupid.
Where did @the_spyder ever say anything like that?
Every single one of their post has this ridiculous assumption that a Lawful person will follow whatever current government and laws are in place to the letter.
Lawful is a preference towards a government and a system of laws, it is not however always a preference to the ones currently in place.
Every single one of their post has this ridiculous assumption that a Lawful person will follow whatever current government and laws are in place to the letter.
Lawful is a preference towards a government and a system of laws, it is not however always a preference to the ones currently in place.
I don't remember Rasaad, Aerie or Mazzy really express a strong opinion on politics or government, but I have seen them speak positively about a philosophical order (Rasaad), the family structure (Aerie) and a code of honor (Mazzy). These are all "lawful" goals and institutions that have nothing to do with government.
Every single one of their post has this ridiculous assumption that a Lawful person will follow whatever current government and laws are in place to the letter.
Lawful is a preference towards a government and a system of laws, it is not however always a preference to the ones currently in place.
You clearly have not read or understood my posts. I am sorry for the confusion.
What I have said in every post is that alignment has nothing to do with government. Nothing what so ever. That is why Chaotics "Might" follow a given government and Lawfuls aren't "Bound" by them.
Yes it does. It's a preference for or against government.
Preference isn't always an overpowering urge to do something or not. Like I said, a Chaotic character can follow a government because Chaotic isn't the only thing defining them.
Are you somehow convinced that the only defining trait to a Lawful or Chaotic person with regards to government is Lawful and Chaotic?
That's ridiculous. It's just a preference. Just like people have a preference for certain foods but not all of them will go out of their way to eat those foods all the time. Or how people who have a preference against some foods but won't go out of their way not to eat them, or will eat them anyway because of circumstances.
Alignment is defined by D&D is simply a preference. Which is why the entire system is so stupid, since it hangs a ton of other mechanics (like class choice and spell/item) on something that's merely preference.
Comments
Apologies for the random political theory, but when it comes to flaunting the law, what stands out for me is the difference between civil disobedience in the traditional sense and "true" rebellion. True rebellion is Chaotic; it's flaunting the law and trying to get away without punishment because you think it's illegitimate and shouldn't apply to you or anyone else.
Civil disobedience is something different. At its heart, it involves purposefully breaking the law with the intent to improve it--and respecting it enough to accept the consequences. I'm thinking of Socrates's Apology now, where he refuses to flee Athens even though it means death, because he accepted the state's authority over him, even if he disagreed with absolutely everything.
To me, that's the difference between Lawful and Chaotic. You don't need to follow laws to be Lawful, but if you're denying the authority of the system, there's probably something wrong with your alignment.
Because wanting the concept of laws abolished is also a strict moral code.
Wanting the concept of laws abolished is definitely an equally strong statement. I've never said that Lawful is about strict morals and chaotic is about the lack thereof, though. Chaotic Good can be as fanatical as Lawful Good, and probably scarier. They're less constrained by the concept of the greater good--they're more likely to let the world burn if they think it's the right decision.
The concept that I've been trying to communicate is that The Law/Chaos axis is not related to law. A chaotic person might very well be an avid supporter of the local legal system in the same way that a Lawful character might disagree with and despise that same legal system.
The differences between a lawful alignment and a Chaotic one have nothing to do with the local (or global) judicial system. Being Lawful or chaotic should have nothing what so ever to do with the government.
An alignment has, buy it's very nature, to be an internal moral code. That's what alignment is, who you are in the absence of outside stimulus. If some outside force acts upon you to MAKE you do one thing or another, it isn't YOUR alignment that is doing that. It's the circumstance.
If you are the type of lawful (or chaotic) person that believes in society and the local government, then sure you will uphold the laws. If your own personal code is such that it is at variance from government, then you won't care overmuch if you adhere to the laws of the land, REGARDLESS OF YOUR LAWFUL OR CHAOTIC LEANINGS.
It's true that a Lawful person believes in structure and order. this in NO WAY means that they support the government as any number of governments and legal systems may not be terribly ordered or designed to promote structure. Or they may be designed to support order and structure, but just not the order and structure that the individual believes in.
A chaotic person believes more in freedoms and individual pursuits. If the government promotes individual freedoms and frees up the people to pursue individual pursuits, a Chaotic person is going to be a staunch defender of that legal system.
Lawful does not equal the law. Chaotic does not equal anti-government.
Nuff said.
order, classicism, structure, logic, organization, regimentation, rank, hierarchy, judgement, analysis, bureaucracy, conformity
freestyle, abstraction, intuition, whimsy, equality, free association, independence, wholistic thinking, creativity, antiestablishment, rebellion
Those lists of value words around the two poles could get much longer than that. Even our left-brain right-brain neurological brain structure demonstrates the two ways of interacting with the world. We could say left-brain dominant people are "lawful", and right-brain dominant people are "chaotic".
Usually "lawful" people follow the rules and obey most of the laws of the land in a society, but they're not defined by that, and exceptions abound.
Usually "chaotic" people break the rules whenever they can get away with it, and often rebel against established norms and hierarchies, but they're not defined by that, and exceptions abound.
There are often pairs of characters in fiction who personify the tension between the "lawful" and "chaotic" poles, especially in science fiction. Spock and McCoy from Star Trek come immediately to mind.
Finally, I like to remind people that Gary Gygax created the alignment system in order to classify game pieces for a war strategy game played on a hex board. It wasn't intended to be much different from having white pieces and black pieces in chess, along with, let's say, red pieces. (Although he gradually expanded the different "armies" for his game into nine "colors" instead of the three he started with - you could call them "white", "black", and all seven colors of the rainbow, instead of "lawful good", "chaotic evil", etc.)
Gygax objected to people trying to create serious moral philosophy out of his gaming system, and he often became very heated and angry in telling fans that he refused to argue philosophy with them when they were supposed to be asking him about D&D.
Part of my thinking about alignment stems from a curiosity about what it must have been like to be a learned member of the Mediterranean world 500BC-500AD. What the psychological effect of living in a polytheistic world might have been is fascinating.
In your example of Chaotic elves, you just described a group of vigilantes that just happen to be working towards the same goals
in the same way that a Lawful character might disagree with and despise that same legal system.
They'll still want a system of laws. As much as a chaotic character will not want them. Except it does. The lawful chaotic scale refer to the presence or absence of order in the environment. As far as D&D is concerned, alignment governs how your character is supposed to act. Your character doesn't spend all day not doing anything. That's external. In D&D terms, alignment is pointless without the outside world. Again stop limiting this to local laws.
Lawful characters who think they can influence the laws will try to bring about the laws they want. Chaotic characters in the same position will just bring down those laws period. This is external, and this is what D&D cares about. They will support A government. Chaotic isn't Chaotic Stupid. It just means they're tolerating the current system of laws because they can't do anything realistic about it. Lawful equals A set of laws, Chaotic equals the absence of that. None of these alignments equal stupid. Not every Chaotic person is openly and actively anti-government because it's not easy to bring down the government. The method used to bring down systems of order can also conflict with their Good/Evil portion of their alignment.
If a Chaotic person is presented with a plan to bring down a system of order that they think will work and doesn't conflict with their Good/Evil alignment scale then they'll take it.
alignment is a powerful thing that can make or break any campaign, i once ran a campaign where the main villain was a paladin and as such he was lawful good. the antagonist of a story doesn't have to be evil which can lead to great campaigns and alot of people dont get that, another example would be the game i'm in of pathfinder where im a neutral evil necromancer, people are confused by this because im helping people yet im evil. but anyway, before i ramble on. i think law means which ever law the character follows. be it a gods law or a cities law its what ever law the character chooses to accept
I you act against what you know to be true ("I am Adahn.") you get chaotic. If you confront a (supposedly lawful, good) Deva betraying a Devil, you get lawful; if you betray a (definitely evil, but apparently lawful) Devil in your dealings you get chaotic-good. The same action can be good or evil, chaotic or lawful depending on INTENTION. (to Deionarra "[Lie] I love you." vs "[Truth] I love you.")
PST was a giant alignment simulator. Nothing like it has been done before or since.
(P.S. I voted #4, but I think BG bends toward #1.)
Discuss the applications of the aforementioned alignment systems on the Three Laws of Robotics. (In particular, on the mandate of what is "good" for individuals vs the society.)
If you dropped a LG Paladin on a deserted island that has no social structure/government all by himself for two years, will he not still be LG during that period?
I think Lawful and Chaotic are qualities that come from within the character, that are likely to cause the character to react to a situation in a certain way. However, *what* the character does in a certain situation (ie living under a Government A, in Society B or on Deserted Island C) is not nearly as important in determining where he falls on the law-chaos scale as the *why*.
For example: Keldorn opposes the Cowled Wizards. Korgan opposes the Cowled Wizards. They are on the same side against a pretty bad system of rule. To say that Law-Chaos is defined by an existing government would imply that there is very little difference in the two characters (one LG the other CE), when we all know that this is not the case. Their personal values that led them to supporting that cause is what defines them on both scales.
Modern Theoretical Physics in its development of Complexity Theory is also deeply concerned with these issues. If I understand correctly, some in that field are proposing that what we call "Life" may necessarily involve regular oscillations between relative states of Crystallization and Chaos.
Part of my faith about the Future is that we will begin developing mathematical models of brain and endocrine systems that can be directly observed. Actual measurable facts sustained by repeatable experiments will eventually completely transform how we view almost all of our spiritual/religious/philosophical languages. Staying tuned.
@the_spyder Your point about the temerity of Gary Gygax in incorporating such profound concepts without spelling them out more specifically and making them a major element of the game--perhaps comparable to shorty saves or morale breaks--is good. That alignment theory is still so obviously open to various interpretations may actually be evidentially reflective of the broader RP community. Just sayin'
Within the current context [DnD-Baldur'sGate] however, the chief aspect of alignment theory must be IMO whether or not the game designers have done their job in a balanced satisfying way. If I can kill Drzzt and then go sell and steal a certain item in Nashkel and make donations until my Reputation is even better than before with the addition of a hefty bankroll....do Moorcockian alignments actually consequentially exist in the game except as a limitation on party compostition??
But where it really falls down is in the fact that the entire game system wasn't supposed to be monopoly or checkers such that you roll the dice and move your race car around the board. it was supposed to be open and free form and merely suggested guidelines for the players (and DM) to take and use as they see fit, discarding the rest.
Alignment in particular. Someone who is of good alignment could do (or be forced to do, or do by accident) evil. it's part of the continuum. Chances are they will (Try to) do more good than evil, and will in all probability feel bad about the evil that they do, but these aren't card board cut-outs that only act one way.
The dichotemy of Law vs Chaos is something even murkier. If I play a lawful neutral Priest, in some views, I am not allowed to disagree with or violate the law of a corrupt and oppressive government, because I am lawful. The very differences between Church and State IRL in the US shows that reasonably lawful organizations can and (in some cases) Must be against the government.
Conversely there are extremely chaotic governments in the real world, that no self respecting chaotic would rail against.
But gone are the days when card board cutouts are used for characters in D&D. Everyone should play as they feel and not take someone else's ideals and concepts. If it makes you happy and you can have a valid internal justification for your actions based on alignment, play that way. Who cares if others disagree? Have fun with it.
Take a look at some of the smaller countries where the government is a dictatorship not set up to promote society so much as to provide wealth and power to a very few. Take a look at governments where people are locked up or killed "By officials of the government" not because they break the laws, but because they piss someone off. Governments where they promote schools for teaching it's citizens how to undermine other countries political and economic systems. These are hardly "Lawful" in nature.
But I digress.
Even Chaotic Neutral and Evil people would do the same if they aren't among the ones in power. And this appeals to Chaotic how exactly?
Also they are Lawful. Lawful isn't good, it isn't evil. It's structure and order, it doesn't matter what that structure and order is used to bring. This is why we have Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral. If Lawful was about justice, fairness, and quality then the only Lawful alignment there would be is Lawful Good and some specific cases of Lawful Neutral.
On my Father's side [PHD-Organic Chemistry] there are 17th Cent Quakers who emigrated to Pennsylvania from Yorkshire during the devastation of Cromwell et al., eventually becoming Baptists in W. S. Carolina--a Piedmont region with relatively few slaves. But it spawned a very active KKK @1890, strongly supported by at least 2 of my Great-Uncles. From that side I also have Blacksmithing, Master Carpentry and Small-hold Agriculture in my blood as well as a High School Principal [the other-Freemason but not KKK- Grandpa].
Against this background my parents were among the core members of a semi-radical Presbyterian Church formed in the mid 1960s with the explicit goal of being an integrated congregation in North Carolina. Dad was the first Clerk of Session of this highly educated group with a number of theologian types among the 100+ founders.
And then I just so happened to get seriously involved with Eastern Religion---not going into details. This, after almost flunking out of college from playing too much Risk, Bridge-Poker, Avalon Hill wargames and, of course, the alcohol/drug thing which was fairly serious for 2 yrs.
So the question of Alignment carries a lot of weight for me. Particularly the passage from a system of Lawful Evil to the Promised Land of whatever ~and more particularly ~who shall have the authority to declare its realities.
Apologies to the Forum. Cheers!
But you have this misguided notion that a Lawful individual will agree with any government or any law just because it's prevalent or the biggest one out there. Lawful isn't Lawful Stupid.
Where did @the_spyder ever say anything like that?
Every single one of their post has this ridiculous assumption that a Lawful person will follow whatever current government and laws are in place to the letter.
Lawful is a preference towards a government and a system of laws, it is not however always a preference to the ones currently in place.
What I have said in every post is that alignment has nothing to do with government. Nothing what so ever. That is why Chaotics "Might" follow a given government and Lawfuls aren't "Bound" by them.
Preference isn't always an overpowering urge to do something or not. Like I said, a Chaotic character can follow a government because Chaotic isn't the only thing defining them.
Are you somehow convinced that the only defining trait to a Lawful or Chaotic person with regards to government is Lawful and Chaotic?
That's ridiculous. It's just a preference. Just like people have a preference for certain foods but not all of them will go out of their way to eat those foods all the time. Or how people who have a preference against some foods but won't go out of their way not to eat them, or will eat them anyway because of circumstances.
Alignment is defined by D&D is simply a preference. Which is why the entire system is so stupid, since it hangs a ton of other mechanics (like class choice and spell/item) on something that's merely preference.