I think people have a tendency to confuse "chaotic" with "evil" hence the people finding it difficult to reconcile chaotic good - like the guy in the unpopular opinions thread who said no one plays chaotic good correctly because chaotic good means being a big jerk. The kindest thing one can say about such views is that they're inaccurate.
That is just your personal bias. They don't have to believe in something to be selfless. Obviously CG is not the alignment for you, and that is fine.
It's not about "alignment for me" or anybody else, really - they are too cartoonish to make sense. I'm simply trying to understand them. So... they do it unpurposely? Like golems? Sorry, but I can't really imagine selfless as habit that comes out of nowhere - that kind of attitude wouldn't entitle anyone to be good, because it wouldn't be conscious act of will. Those CG people are making choices - like "I will help that beggar"! And those choices aren't random - they have to come from some code. If so, then there is no difference between CG and LG; if not, then there is no difference between CG and CN.
Your confusion is caused by the notion that being chaotic means not having a code.
I think the questions in that test didn't really do a good job of reflecting life in my country, but it did turn out it agreed with my own assessment of my alignment.
Is it just me or has there been a lot of alignment threads lately? I also think most people are neutral, but if you focus on the selfish/altruistic axis I think quite a few people would turn out to be evil.
@Lord_Tansheron LE really? You would at least get to cherry pick your hell rewards..
hate to break it to ya @Artona but D&D alignment is a mess of contradictions if you examine it up close, which is why DM Fiat, the overgod which is over even Ao, smooths over the creases and tells everyone to stand back far enough they can't see the philosophical paradoxes inherent in non-relative morality and non-relative ethics written by game designers living in a world where relativity hangs heavy over meta-ethical thought constructs and their linguistic expressions
the key thing is to look at D&D ethics and morality not like logical arguments, but like an aesthetics influenced by Outer Planes. Look at the Great Wheel, find where the alignment you're having a problem conceiving is, then extrapolate that Plane having an influence on the person with the alignment combo that seems not to exist (in this case Arborea, which gives you three planes to look at if you consider Ysgard and the Beastlands)
IMHO it's about an aesthetic view of ethics and morality extrapolated from Planar essence into the various Prime Material Planes, in part because any attempt to be too rigorous exposes the shallow philosophy that goes into constructing D&D distinctions between Good and Evil and Law and Chaos, which upends the whole thing...but even examining it too close is the province of DM Fiat, should players really want to go there, so that's not to say some really interesting games where Planar wars result from philosophical arguments on the Material Plane aren't possible with the right DM! Hell, I'd love to see players fighting on the Arborea side of a war between an alliance of Limbo and Celestia on the one hand and Arborea on the other. "No, we exist! We're CG characters!" "Well, prove it, Arborea's under attack and your dying CG deity who is fading out of existence is calling you to their side!"
also worth noting a lot of variation can fit inside of any given alignment, so you could have people interpreting the same set of actions with a variety of different intentions to the extent you could literally have a party who all acted the same in response to a given situation but with different internal interpretations of the intent to line up with their alignment
no group of players would ever want to play this, but conceivably you could have a party of clones who are all the different non-neutral combos (i.e. a LG, CG, LE, CE party of 4) who could, if they were creative enough, come up with justifications that fit their alignment to constantly be acting in unison with disparate minds, and similarly you could have a party all the same alignment with wildly different ways of interpreting their uni-alignment so that there was tons of intra-party conflict
Nice analysis, @GenderNihilismGirdle - I couldn't put it better myself. Well, yeah - I see it in similar way (I believe), however funny that kind of mental exercise ("is person X rather Chaotic Good, or Neutral God?") is. I find it kinda like favourite football club - it makes no difference if you root for Barca or Real Madryt, it just makes you get different stuff (no Karsomyr of Holy Messi, but Ronaldo's Abyssal Blade, so to speak).
@Artona You might be taking this alignment stuff a bit too seriously. I was only trying to explain what concepts they represent. I am not interested in an argument, especially if you're trying to apply real-life concepts. That's just a foolish exercise in futility, so to say.
You say shallow, I say cliché. Do they mean the same thing... Maybe
The only way I've made sense of these 9 alignments is by taking stereotypical good/ evil i.e. good helps the weak and evil takes advantage of the weak, lawful supports the laws of society and chaotic actively or incidentally rebels against them. Obviously neutral types are indifferent/ dedicated.
To my shame I've never played p&p but if I did I'd like to find a DM as clued up as you.
@Artona You might be taking this alignment stuff a bit too seriously. I was only trying to explain what concepts they represent. I am not interested in an argument, especially if you're trying to apply real-life concepts. That's just a foolish exercise in futility, so to say.
@Artona has mostly just expressed long standing arguments against the somewhat simplistic alignment system up to 3.5ed and is one of many who struggle with it.
@FinneousPJ your suggestion that it is not taken too seriously/ literally is the perfect response in that I doubt these 9 alignments were ever designed to be interpreted as anything other than a helpful framework.
I always interpret it as selfish vs selfless and unpredictable vs predictable. That makes all scale combinations feasible. You can apply it to a society context but you do not need to.
Your confusion is caused by the notion that being chaotic means not having a code.
It's what people said to me:
A chaotic person wouldn't deeply believe in any set of laws (those of nature or man) and would strike out in their own way accordingly.
In simple terms good means selfless and chaotic means non-principled
Not believing in any set of laws is not the same thing as not having a code. A personal code is not a law, it's just something that guides your actions - a set of morals, as it were. For lawful characters, it can be a set of laws, such as with paladins, but that isn't the only way to approach the matter, hence the existence of chaotic characters.
The statement that "chaotic means non principled" is one of the reasons I made my other comment about people confusing chaos and evil. Chaotic doesn't mean unprincipled. It means acting as one's conscience directs (5e). From Pathfinder and D&D3.5, chaos means
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
And chaotic good means similar to D&D5e, with the added comment that chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
D&D2e says that "chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence...Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society."
None of this suggests that chaotic good characters have no code. It in fact specifically refers repeatedly to their moral compass, which would also include principles - meaning they're not unprincipled, either.
I think people have a tendency to confuse "chaotic" with "evil" hence the people finding it difficult to reconcile chaotic good - like the guy in the unpopular opinions thread who said no one plays chaotic good correctly because chaotic good means being a big jerk. The kindest thing one can say about such views is that they're inaccurate.
@BelleSorciere Hey! I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote what I say before you say that my views are inaccurate, thank you very much! I said that chaotic good characters are more likely to be jerks and hypocrites (and to clarify, as considered by the rest of society) than lawful good characters (because they don't care what society thinks about them and lawful good characters generally do). I said specifically that most people incorrectly play chaotic good without being aware of it, I did not say why. Please read and try to understand the whole post next time before you inaccurately summarize what someone says: doing such prevents both parties from looking like idiots unnecessarily.
*panics hysterically, freaks out, and dies from mashedtater-brain exploding. Mallodramtic expression written in mashedtaters on face. Tombstone says, "Here lies Drama Queen of Beamdog, who was done the incredible injustice of being misquoted and paid the ultimate price. The world will forever miss mashedtaters." Planet goes on massive mashedtaters famine, crops fail, homes crumble, and the populace is bathed in waves of gravy that have no mashedtaters home to rest on. Misquoting is outlawed and punishable by death accross the whole planet in an effort to prevent the next side dish famine and food topping flood. UN nukes entire nations for one or two individuals misquoting them. World erupts in total war and is burned by fire and nuclear fallout. Many remaining survivors, after several generations, mutate into mashedtaters zombies and become the new dominate species of the planet. Humans become scarce, and soon the word mashedtaters is spoken among them only in fearful whispers. Eventually, the mashedtaters zombies conquer the world and establish total dominance over all remaining forms of mutated life, ruling them with an iron fist of mashedtaters. Then...yes, then....oh yes, very soon....@mashedtater 's revenge is complete! Muahahahahahahah!!!!!
I have always been selfless and helpful to everybody, and even suffered and sacrificed much for it. But I find more and more difficult to trust people and find the will to help them nowadays. Lately I have been observing some chaotic neutral tendencies in myself, changing my decisions on a whim and withdrawing, only to come back later, but maybe it is because I have been hurt and deceived a lot of times, and now feel used and suspicious of everyone. Or maybe it is just stress/anxiety, the last year has been somewhat tough for me, but I still have hopes. You can say I am kinda like post-spellhold Imoen:not as sweet and innocent and ful of light as once was.
Perfectly understandable. I have gone through similar experiences which shifted my alignment for sure. I have no suggestions or recommendations I can give you though. I'm happy being chaotic something (neutral or evil depends on how you see the axis).
Back on topic (sorry for the end of the world above, but hey, what can I say? You specifically asked for mashedtaters zombie apocalypse when you misquoted me, it's not my fault):
I relate mostly to lawful good in my personal life, but I don't see the lawful vs chaos and good vs evil axes the same way it is defined in the players handbook. I do understand that it is a role playing interpretation tool in a black and white fantasy world. We do not live in a black and white (or red and blue) world, we live in a world made up of shades of grey (or shades of...purple?), and trying to put nine character defining limitations in such a world is essentially impossible. But, it's still fun to think about.
I see the good vs evil as a difference between God (or whatever higher power you believe in) and Satan (or whatever polar opposite of what you believe in, if any). To be up front, I am a Christian, but I'm not preachy, so chill. We as individuals are either moving towards God (good), standing still (neutral), or moving towards Satan, and thus furthering one or neither of those causes by our actions (whether or not we believe in any of those things). I also see in the good vs evil as light vs darkness; light (or goodness) bring clarity and knowledge, whereas darkness (or evil) seeks to keep us ignorant and confused.
The lawful vs chaos thing is a little bit more tricky to define, but I do think about it. Yes, I know that lawful is defined as the laws of society and chaotic is against that, but I differ from that steroetypical view, so bear with me. I believe that the laws of society could be either chaotic, lawful, evil, good, or grey (or purple) to all of those axes, so it doesn't really play into what I believe. (I mean, come on! Slavery, although a law in some countries, is totally chaotic evil, I don't care how you rationalize it!)
I see on the lawful side unification, or "being one" with each other. Being one is not just working together, but being unified under a cause. Also on that side is reality, such as the laws of physics and electricity, and the movement of the planets, and patterns. Also on that side is "honor", as in a personal code of guidance and commitment (not honor as in fame or recognition). On the evil side of law is inflexibility and unwillingness to change and improve.
On the chaotic side is deviation from unification, or separation, which could be either good or bad depending on whom is unified. Polarized to the lawful side of the laws of physics wouldn't be defiance of the laws of physics (because such is impossible) but creativity and dreaming and imagination, beyond what we understand of the laws of physics. Also on the chaotic side is not necessarily the opposite of honor (which would be dishonor), but more of its counterpart, independence: the ability to think outside the box and break your code of honor and break your commitments. On the evil side of chaos is defiance of natural law (such as man's right to freedom, ironically) and perversion of higher law, and rationalization.
I see law vs chaos kind of like two sides of the same coin, where you can have both depending on what situation you are reacting to. Being neutral is like kind of neither or even both, depending on the situation. We all are either chaotic or neutral or lawful in one way or the other, but we may tend towards one more strongly than another.
I tend towards lawfulness more often because I tend to try to work together with others more often than alone. I also am more about understanding existing laws (of physics and science) than thinking outside the box about new possibilities. As I try to keep my honor and commitments more than acting independently of them, I am more lawful than chaotic.
As far as good vs evil, I have been on a spiritual journey lately where I have been thinking more outside the box of general Christianity and my current denomination. Although at first my journey led me down paths of doubt and anger, I can feel myself drawing closer to God little by little because I am being strengthened by clarity and knowledge, almost as though my eyes are being uncovered. I may be weak and sin, but I am forgiving myself and moving towards God overall.
Comments
So... they do it unpurposely? Like golems? Sorry, but I can't really imagine selfless as habit that comes out of nowhere - that kind of attitude wouldn't entitle anyone to be good, because it wouldn't be conscious act of will.
Those CG people are making choices - like "I will help that beggar"! And those choices aren't random - they have to come from some code. If so, then there is no difference between CG and LG; if not, then there is no difference between CG and CN.
Your confusion is caused by the notion that being chaotic means not having a code.
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (29)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (29)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Chaotic Evil ---- X (1)
Is it just me or has there been a lot of alignment threads lately? I also think most people are neutral, but if you focus on the selfish/altruistic axis I think quite a few people would turn out to be evil.
@Lord_Tansheron LE really? You would at least get to cherry pick your hell rewards..
the key thing is to look at D&D ethics and morality not like logical arguments, but like an aesthetics influenced by Outer Planes. Look at the Great Wheel, find where the alignment you're having a problem conceiving is, then extrapolate that Plane having an influence on the person with the alignment combo that seems not to exist (in this case Arborea, which gives you three planes to look at if you consider Ysgard and the Beastlands)
IMHO it's about an aesthetic view of ethics and morality extrapolated from Planar essence into the various Prime Material Planes, in part because any attempt to be too rigorous exposes the shallow philosophy that goes into constructing D&D distinctions between Good and Evil and Law and Chaos, which upends the whole thing...but even examining it too close is the province of DM Fiat, should players really want to go there, so that's not to say some really interesting games where Planar wars result from philosophical arguments on the Material Plane aren't possible with the right DM! Hell, I'd love to see players fighting on the Arborea side of a war between an alliance of Limbo and Celestia on the one hand and Arborea on the other. "No, we exist! We're CG characters!" "Well, prove it, Arborea's under attack and your dying CG deity who is fading out of existence is calling you to their side!"
no group of players would ever want to play this, but conceivably you could have a party of clones who are all the different non-neutral combos (i.e. a LG, CG, LE, CE party of 4) who could, if they were creative enough, come up with justifications that fit their alignment to constantly be acting in unison with disparate minds, and similarly you could have a party all the same alignment with wildly different ways of interpreting their uni-alignment so that there was tons of intra-party conflict
Well, yeah - I see it in similar way (I believe), however funny that kind of mental exercise ("is person X rather Chaotic Good, or Neutral God?") is. I find it kinda like favourite football club - it makes no difference if you root for Barca or Real Madryt, it just makes you get different stuff (no Karsomyr of Holy Messi, but Ronaldo's Abyssal Blade, so to speak).
You say shallow, I say cliché. Do they mean the same thing... Maybe
The only way I've made sense of these 9 alignments is by taking stereotypical good/ evil i.e. good helps the weak and evil takes advantage of the weak, lawful supports the laws of society and chaotic actively or incidentally rebels against them. Obviously neutral types are indifferent/ dedicated.
To my shame I've never played p&p but if I did I'd like to find a DM as clued up as you.
@FinneousPJ your suggestion that it is not taken too seriously/ literally is the perfect response in that I doubt these 9 alignments were ever designed to be interpreted as anything other than a helpful framework.
Not believing in any set of laws is not the same thing as not having a code. A personal code is not a law, it's just something that guides your actions - a set of morals, as it were. For lawful characters, it can be a set of laws, such as with paladins, but that isn't the only way to approach the matter, hence the existence of chaotic characters.
The statement that "chaotic means non principled" is one of the reasons I made my other comment about people confusing chaos and evil. Chaotic doesn't mean unprincipled. It means acting as one's conscience directs (5e). From Pathfinder and D&D3.5, chaos means And chaotic good means similar to D&D5e, with the added comment that chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
D&D2e says that "chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence...Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society."
None of this suggests that chaotic good characters have no code. It in fact specifically refers repeatedly to their moral compass, which would also include principles - meaning they're not unprincipled, either.
Hey! I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote what I say before you say that my views are inaccurate, thank you very much! I said that chaotic good characters are more likely to be jerks and hypocrites (and to clarify, as considered by the rest of society) than lawful good characters (because they don't care what society thinks about them and lawful good characters generally do). I said specifically that most people incorrectly play chaotic good without being aware of it, I did not say why. Please read and try to understand the whole post next time before you inaccurately summarize what someone says: doing such prevents both parties from looking like idiots unnecessarily.
*panics hysterically, freaks out, and dies from mashedtater-brain exploding. Mallodramtic expression written in mashedtaters on face. Tombstone says, "Here lies Drama Queen of Beamdog, who was done the incredible injustice of being misquoted and paid the ultimate price. The world will forever miss mashedtaters." Planet goes on massive mashedtaters famine, crops fail, homes crumble, and the populace is bathed in waves of gravy that have no mashedtaters home to rest on. Misquoting is outlawed and punishable by death accross the whole planet in an effort to prevent the next side dish famine and food topping flood. UN nukes entire nations for one or two individuals misquoting them. World erupts in total war and is burned by fire and nuclear fallout. Many remaining survivors, after several generations, mutate into mashedtaters zombies and become the new dominate species of the planet. Humans become scarce, and soon the word mashedtaters is spoken among them only in fearful whispers. Eventually, the mashedtaters zombies conquer the world and establish total dominance over all remaining forms of mutated life, ruling them with an iron fist of mashedtaters. Then...yes, then....oh yes, very soon....@mashedtater 's revenge is complete! Muahahahahahahah!!!!!
Great, now see what you started, @BelleSorciere???!!!
I relate mostly to lawful good in my personal life, but I don't see the lawful vs chaos and good vs evil axes the same way it is defined in the players handbook. I do understand that it is a role playing interpretation tool in a black and white fantasy world. We do not live in a black and white (or red and blue) world, we live in a world made up of shades of grey (or shades of...purple?), and trying to put nine character defining limitations in such a world is essentially impossible. But, it's still fun to think about.
I see the good vs evil as a difference between God (or whatever higher power you believe in) and Satan (or whatever polar opposite of what you believe in, if any). To be up front, I am a Christian, but I'm not preachy, so chill. We as individuals are either moving towards God (good), standing still (neutral), or moving towards Satan, and thus furthering one or neither of those causes by our actions (whether or not we believe in any of those things). I also see in the good vs evil as light vs darkness; light (or goodness) bring clarity and knowledge, whereas darkness (or evil) seeks to keep us ignorant and confused.
The lawful vs chaos thing is a little bit more tricky to define, but I do think about it. Yes, I know that lawful is defined as the laws of society and chaotic is against that, but I differ from that steroetypical view, so bear with me. I believe that the laws of society could be either chaotic, lawful, evil, good, or grey (or purple) to all of those axes, so it doesn't really play into what I believe. (I mean, come on! Slavery, although a law in some countries, is totally chaotic evil, I don't care how you rationalize it!)
I see on the lawful side unification, or "being one" with each other. Being one is not just working together, but being unified under a cause. Also on that side is reality, such as the laws of physics and electricity, and the movement of the planets, and patterns. Also on that side is "honor", as in a personal code of guidance and commitment (not honor as in fame or recognition). On the evil side of law is inflexibility and unwillingness to change and improve.
On the chaotic side is deviation from unification, or separation, which could be either good or bad depending on whom is unified. Polarized to the lawful side of the laws of physics wouldn't be defiance of the laws of physics (because such is impossible) but creativity and dreaming and imagination, beyond what we understand of the laws of physics. Also on the chaotic side is not necessarily the opposite of honor (which would be dishonor), but more of its counterpart, independence: the ability to think outside the box and break your code of honor and break your commitments. On the evil side of chaos is defiance of natural law (such as man's right to freedom, ironically) and perversion of higher law, and rationalization.
I see law vs chaos kind of like two sides of the same coin, where you can have both depending on what situation you are reacting to. Being neutral is like kind of neither or even both, depending on the situation. We all are either chaotic or neutral or lawful in one way or the other, but we may tend towards one more strongly than another.
I tend towards lawfulness more often because I tend to try to work together with others more often than alone. I also am more about understanding existing laws (of physics and science) than thinking outside the box about new possibilities. As I try to keep my honor and commitments more than acting independently of them, I am more lawful than chaotic.
As far as good vs evil, I have been on a spiritual journey lately where I have been thinking more outside the box of general Christianity and my current denomination. Although at first my journey led me down paths of doubt and anger, I can feel myself drawing closer to God little by little because I am being strengthened by clarity and knowledge, almost as though my eyes are being uncovered. I may be weak and sin, but I am forgiving myself and moving towards God overall.
Short answer: lawful good.
I am sorry about paraphrasing you badly (I wasn't quoting you).
Just compare sophistication of Morrowind with bi-choice Skyrim; with a Dargon swoop-down spam, though, for those whom like it...