Posts
Wasn't sure where to stick this, general discussion seemed like a fit though
Introduction
The alignment system in both 3.5 & Pathfnder attempts to remove the subjective nature of things like good & evil, causing serious flaws in the process. It goes on to stumble further into a pit of failure due to how extreme and overly broad some of the alignments are and starts digging the hole deeper by making some of the neutral alignments into an extreme third pole rather than something between good/evil making them a poor choice for any kind of morally grey character that does not fit where they “should”.
While I think that using the word Law rather than Order is a flaw that causes many people to interpret it as following/ignoring a legal code of law even if that law is simply not the accepted code (a thief that follows guild rules and ignores the local legal code within the boundaries of the guild rules for simple example). Aside from that wording choice, I think law/chaos is not too bad overall because they do not represent things that are subjective by their very nature as good & evil.
The extreme and absolute nature of the alignment system causes many problems. Lawful a-Hole paladins, the enjoyment/game destroying Chaotic Evil alignment, or the fact that many GM’s refuse to allow evil alignments or players who simply dislike when they are allowed due to the past troubles they have seen it cause in games. The fact that the alignments as written are largely absolute and require quite a few insertions of wishy-washy words like “some”, “many”, or “for example” leads to needless debates between players and GM’s that should not be required any more than it is necessary to debate the realism of hitting someone four times with a big two handed greatsword in the time it takes them to hit you once with a dagger or something. The simple loosening of the absolutes belt would go a heck of a long way to fixing the problems in the system
My Example
In order to show just how deep some of these flaws run, I’ll be using Dexter Morgan from Showtime’s TV series Dexter. He is a serial killer who kills murderers for the catharsis it gives him. As a young child, Dexter witnessed his mother get killed with a chainsaw and was locked in the shipping container it happened in for days until a cop named Harry rescued and adopted him. To put it simply, he is “Damaged” (by his own admission).
His adopted parent Harry realized something was wrong with Dexter before he crossed too far over the line while he was still young, as a result of that realization there was a “Code of Harry“ that dexter follows to keep him safe from society by blending into it as the guy nobody would suspect and targeting victims who nobody will care too much about when they go missing (scumbag killers). He follows the Code of Harry even when doing so puts him at extreme risk of being discovered, not killing a cop he works with and attempting to save his life even though the cop in question discovered his secret, hates Dexter, and plans to arrest him for his crimes once he is able to for example.
Clearly Dexter should be Lawful ____. I think trying to peg him at Chaotic is so absurd that I (hopefully) won’t need to do a breakdown for Law/Chaos like good/evil will get.... But I’ll fill in the “____“ later when I get to that. I’ve been told that the Punisher from the comics is also a good example... but having only seen the movies, he’s bad for me. I’d be thrilled for another good example of the problems if anyone knows him better and cares to follow steps similar to mine below.
The Rules
Now adding rules seems silly at first glance, but they are designed to prevent illegal alignments like “not X” or “both X and Y”.Because the purpose is to expose the flaws in the wording of the alignment system, the alignment he “should” be is only acceptable if we can fit him into it using the exact wording of the alignment system. Clearly this would include the following
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from eachother. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
It’s great to admit that the alignment system is not a straightjacket and that it is ok to be outside the lines sometimes, but lets add a condition... specifically any logic train used to fit the subject into an alignment, or reject them from being some other alignment can not also give rise to an illegal alignment like the earlier mentioned “both X and Y” unless you can find a rule that explicitly allows such a strange thing.
The Obvious Choice
Lts start with the obvious choice for his alignment. I’ll be using spoiler tags liberally to keep this post from reaching a gigantic length
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds.
[u]Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.[/u] The scheming baron who expands his power and exploits his people is lawful evil.
[u]Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good.[/u] Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
I’ve added [u]underline[/u] to the parts that include words like “some” and can be ignored for brevity at this time. But Lets break that down and see if dexter even belongs in LE instead of just going by a because I say so style “should”
- -A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.
- There are numerous times when he could easily deal with very real threats to his freedom with a knife but refuses to do so because of the innocent people it would hurt (i.e. Liddy, Doaks, etc). Strike 1
- He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life.
- Ok the lawful bit is pretty obvious, but with the rest... He obviously gets upset about the brutality of Trinity’s killings. The already mentioned attempt to save/help Doaks & LIddy even though doing so could wind him on death row in jail. Lets call this one a maybe. and tally up the score for LE as Srike 1:Maybe1
- He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion
- ooh... maybe I should have included this with the last point, refusing to kill Doaks /Liddy and working with them/trying to save their lives is clear compassion... But lets go on a bit more. Each and every one of the people dexter targets are people he makes sure are murderers who got away by whatever means, but there are times that he discovers his intended victim was a rape victim that killed their rapist or beaten wife who killed her abusive husband and Dexter lets them go even though he could have continued on easily because their murdering act was justified. I think that we already have enough to cross this absolute out and tally up the score Srike 2:Maybe1:
- He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule,
- He has no interest in ruling anything, his bending over backwards to please his girlfriend (rita?) even though he could have probably have made her drop her objections or left her due to her "damaged" nature helps clarify this one, but I think the fact that if he were to rule, it would destroy the code of Harry can finish nixing this one Srike 3:Maybe1:
- He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.
- This one is an epic fail because he is exactly 180 degrees the opposite and chooses his victims entirely on their actions. Srike 4:Maybe1:
- The rest applies to the Law/Chaos Axis or has “some”/”May” clause that makes it unimportant if it applies or not.
Tyhe Results were inconclusive forcing us to fall back to the Good/Evil wording to see where poor Dex fits on the Good/Evil Axis because the extreme evil spelled out in the Lawful Evil description is too far over the cliff for a grey character like him.
Good/Evil
You would expect this to be a freaking slam dunk, so lets find out where the non-subjective troubles put Dexter! Spoiler tags again for length
[spoiler]
GOOD VS. EVILGood characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
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. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice, as with the paladin who attempts to live up to her ideals or the evil cleric who causes pain and terror to emulate his god. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
- Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
- -In short, it is irrelevant to good that he kills & debases murderers because they are not innocent life but killing his victims keeps them from harming innocent life again and protects innocent life in the process and makes it a good action. It matters not either way that he forces his victims to hear about their crimes/victims before he kills them(cou-de-gra style) because they are not innocent. Because they are not innocent life, they do not even count towards evil.
- Count is at good1:evil0
- “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
- -The code of harry forces altruism on him regardless of motives, he makes the world a better place and helps pretty much anyone with pretty much anything they ask him to do. The fact that he genuinely shows enjoyment from helping them makes the act more important. Not killing Doaks/Liddy/etc or people like the previously mentioned the rape victim/beaten wife is important here. Trying to Save Doakseven when he knows that doing so is almost certainly to land him in jail for his "crimes" (which good does not care one whit about). Doaks and Liddy pretty much make this one into a slam dunk due to the certainly fatal consequences they could pose to him as a result of his closeness, refusal to kill, attempt to save/avenge & altruism (working with Doaks at miami PD, helping Liddy in close proximity on a number of things)
- Count is at good2:evil0
- “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. [u]Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.[/u] Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
- - the some & Others clauses makes the [u]underline[/u] bit irrelevant that he does much the opposite. as to the rest of it, good already nixed his victims as being even something it cares about him doing, putting this as good or neutral.
- Count is at good2:neutral/good+1?
- 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. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.
- Despite the first point making his victims irrelevant (because they are not innocent). He refuses to kill innocents to protect(Doaks/Liddy) himself & even risks the consequence of saving/helping them to certainly qualify for the self sacrifice bit.
- good2:neutral/good+1?:
- Being good or evil can be a conscious choice, [COLOR="DarkGreen"]as with the paladin who attempts to live up to her ideals [/COLOR]or the evil cleric who causes pain and terror to emulate his god. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
- -I think we can both agree without debate that he's not neutral. He's damaged due to the childhood trauma of watching his mother bing killed by chainsaw and getting locked in the shipping crate where it happened in for days until harry saved him & later gave him the code of Harry for him to attempt to follow even when it causes him great difficulty.(paladin style ideals!). His murdering is because of that damaged nature rather than a choice (which is irrelevant either way because it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not and the lack of innocence combined with the fact that it prevents them from harming other innocents makes it good and certainly not an evil action)
- Count is at good3:neutral/good+1?:Paladin style!
- Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
- I think we can both agree that this is irrelevant because he is not an animal
- Count is at good3:neutral/good+1?:Paladin Style!
Ok... well that was even worse, apparently Dex is Lawful Good.
Lawful Good?
uhh.....Surely the wording on LG will exclude him from lawful good like LE did right... that should be an illegal alignment of “Not X” right?
Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
- A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act.
- We already established that... so check
- he combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly.
- His victims are all murderers rather than innocents and he is certainly filled with discipline to take them out relentlessly. The reasons why he does it is (so far) not important to Good, Evil, or LG, maybe something else in LG will make it important.
- She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice
- I think the Lawful part is pretty easy to accept for now, but he seems to certainly not like to see injustice.
- A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
- Hell freaking yea... 100% applies to Dex, There are numerous times he shows anger about how some scumbag murderer got off free because of a technicality or the fact that they have more money/fame than they know what to do with. Usually while investigating them. I guess you could call that investigation a low magic detect evil since the Good/Evil established that he does it Paladin Style!
- Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
- Honor is Law.. I can’t see anyone making an argument that Dexter is chaotic. Not killing the rape victim/battered wife that killed their abusers shows compassion, trying to save & work with Doaks/Libby even when doing so could put him on death row shows it as well I think.
Apparently Dexter Really is Lawful good
The LN Straw
Well, lets grasp that last straw just in case
Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is lawful neutral.
Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot
I think we can all agree that the law stuff applies, and that it does not matter if the things that include words like “may” even apply
No clear win for LN, even if it did he would wind up with an illegal LN+LG alignment. It's a shame that the neutral alignments don't bill themselves as a middle ground between good & evil instead of the bizarre third pole of neutrality they aim for.
Final Rules
These are important because the goal is to show the alignment system is or is not flawed due to it’s extreme and overly broad nature and attempts to strip subjective concepts like Good * Evil of that subjective nature. If you don’t follow these rules, you will very likely give Dexter an illegal alignment.
[list]