| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know I haven't posted very much on these forums, I'm almost a lurker here, but I'm trying to change that. So I'm posting a new thread, yet another alignment thread. This is a notably modified version of the 1st Edition AD&D DMG alignment entry.
Major Divisions:
There are two major divisions of four opposite points of view. Not all four are mutually exclusive, although each pair is mutually opposed.
Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between favoring the needs and powers of the group over the rights and freedoms of individuals. That is, Law dictates that collective action and organization is necessary and desirable, while Chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while Chaos promotes the individual over the group.
Good And Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of Good are human rights, or in the case of D&D/Pathfinder, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable and considered abominable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or the happiness others; the ends utterly justify the means.
A creature cannot be Lawful and Chaotic or an Evil and Good at the same time. These, and their reverses, are dichotomous. This is not to say that they cannot exist in the same character or creature if it has dual personalities or is controlled by another entity, but as general divisions they are mutually exclusive pairs. Consider also the alignment graph. If Law is opposed to Chaos, and Good to Evil, then the radically opposed alignments are Lawful Neutral — Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Good — Neutral Evil, Lawful Good — Chaotic Evil, and Lawful Evil — Chaotic Good. Some Lawful groups might, for example, combine to put down some Chaotic threat, for example, just as readily as Good groups would combine to suppress some powerful Evil. Basic understanding and agreement, however, is within the general specific alignment, i.e. one of the nine categories. These are defined as follows:
LAWFUL GOOD: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of Lawful Good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common good as best they can without cruelty or abuse. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring security and providence; but truth is of highest value, and life and its beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all. As with other Good alignments lies and deceit are to be used only to protect life, prevent needless pain or to defeat dangerous adversaries, never for self aggrandizement or petty spite.
NEUTRAL GOOD: Unlike those directly opposite them (Neutral Evil) in alignment, creatures of Neutral Good believe that there must be some roughly equal mix of regulation in combination with freedom if the best is to be brought to the world — the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.
CHAOTIC GOOD: To the Chaotic Good individual, freedom and independence are as important as life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness. Strict laws and social norms beyond strictures and injunctions against unprovoked violence and theft, are seen as destructive to individual freedom, therefore anathema. Under this philosophy each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself and one of the greatest and noblest acts is to help others improve themselves if needed. Good works and charity are how free men, free women and all other free creatures seek to bring comfort and support to others.
LAWFUL NEUTRAL: Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government/society, whether that government is a dictatorship or benevolent democracy is of little consequence. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh most moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost, so long as he doesn't go to far, or a soldier who almost never questions his orders are good examples of Lawful Neutral behavior. Those of Lawful Neutral alignment impose or support such order with neither kindness nor cruelty, neither compassion nor brutality.
TRUE NEUTRAL: True Neutral characters believe in the ultimate and self fulfilling balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, True Neutral characters are extremely rare. True Neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces and philosophies of either Good or Evil, Law or Chaos. They have no concern whether these forces or mindsets remain in balanced contention, for they believe that this is the way things have and will always be.
CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: This view of the cosmos holds that absolute freedom is necessary. Whether the individual exercising such freedom chooses to do good or evil is of little to no concern. They neither go out the way to help or harm others, they simply choose to live life freely and on their own terms in defiance of all external autority.
LAWFUL EVIL: Obviously, not all order is good, nor is all civic mindedness good. Lawful Evil creatures believe that the group is best served by brutally crushing all enemies, cutting the weak and useless out of society, including those who disagree with your methods, and beating your public into submission. Since free will allows for choice of, or at least what those of Lawful Evil alignment would deem evil, the logical conclusion of the Lawful Evil alignment is that free will is an evil of itself.
NEUTRAL EVIL: Similar to the Neutral Good alignment, that of Neutral Evil holds that neither groups nor individuals have any great meaning. This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything else.
CHAOTIC EVIL: The Chaotic Evil creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit, or that freedom itself is so important that life, especially the lives of others, is meaningless compared to it.
If I understand your intentions, then I feel that you have done a good job for what you are trying to do. I prefer to take things in the opposite direction then where you are headed.
His Law-Chaos and Good-Evil is pretty much Verbatim from the AD&D 1st Edition Dungeon Master Guide.
As mentioned it's much narrower then more recent edition's interpretation and that why it's the one I use regardless of the setting or editon I play as I find it's much easier to understandand play correctly.
Obviously other people might have different experience.
Love it.
Your law/chaos rather fails to match lawful and chaotic deities because non-evil deities written by Americans (and probably to some extent people of other nations with English legal traditions) tend to value some degree of individualism. Abadar, for instance, is well to the individualistic side of economics, but values order and is thus lawful.Law/chaos terminology really needs to be discarded. Law and Order aren't the same thing and pretending they are is one of the major sources of alignment confusion.
It might offer an opportunity then, for a less 'US-centric' version of the gods. One of the things I have never enjoyed is how Chaos = American Freedom. Or, it could just offer an opportunity to go back to the roots.
To the OP: Love what you're doing. Thank you for sharing.
It might offer an opportunity then, for a less 'US-centric' version of the gods. One of the things I have never enjoyed is how Chaos = American Freedom. Or, it could just offer an opportunity to go back to the roots.The greater part of the audience is American and most of the rest is British Commonwealth or former British Commonwealth, which where the American ideal of freedom came from in the first place.
Oppressive totalitarian gods billed as "good" won't sell in a mainstream RPG on the English market. You can go to something like Warhammer where the only alignments are Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, and Gratuitous Evil, but then the two axis alignment grid is moot anyways.
I thought you might respond with something like this. The idea that because Paizo is based in the US, that Chaos should == American Freedom.
I'm glad someone other than me sees the Chaos == America! though. It can be frustrating! Seeing Chaos == America tends towards redefining it as the Ultimate Good, and can quickly run into political views. Chaos == America! then repaints Law as, to borrow your phrasing, Totalitarianism. That is, if Chaos is American Freedom, then Law must be its opposite.
Chaos == America can easily limit choices in this way, rather than expanding on them. It can also bring in undesired political overtones to what should be a fun, fantasy game.
Myself, the America! overtones of Chaos is one reason to clarify it in my own games to something that more clearly says, 'This is a fantasy game.' Or, one that offers benefits to either side of the scale, and encourages a choice and perhaps, debate that doesn't center on real life politics.
I appreciate the OP's work in that regard, as well as the nod towards 1e. There are some wonderful elements in our older systems (and their share of toads, too).
Your law/chaos rather fails to match lawful and chaotic deities because non-evil deities written by Americans (and probably to some extent people of other nations with English legal traditions) tend to value some degree of individualism. Abadar, for instance, is well to the individualistic side of economics, but values order and is thus lawful.
Law/chaos terminology really needs to be discarded. Law and Order aren't the same thing and pretending they are is one of the major sources of alignment confusion.
I will admit that the standard D&D/Pathfinder Law vs. Chaos terminology isn't helpful and is generally poorly thought out. But don't blame me, I wasn't the one who picked those two names, that happened long ago in TSR under Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. As for most non-Evil deities tending towards Chaos under this definition, that's understandable. That and much of our concept of human rights is focused on the rights of individuals. I say it would be hard, but not inherently impossible to come out with a Good aligned focused more on the needs of the group than on the rights of the individuals within it, just take care to remember that Lawful Goods place less emphasis personal right then Chaotic Goods, they don't disregard the concept entirely. So let's make a list and see which ones make the most sense as Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, and see which Lawful Good/Neutral gods can remain Lawful without having to become oppressive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When discussions of alignment come up, I'm reminded of Kwil in Moorcock's Corum books:
"Your enemies the Chaos gods are gone. With my brother's help I slew them and all their minions. For good measure we slew the Lords of Law as well. Now you mortals are free of gods on these planes."
I will admit that the standard D&D/Pathfinder Law vs. Chaos terminology isn't helpful and is generally poorly thought out. But don't blame me, I wasn't the one who picked those two names, that happened long ago in TSR under Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Gygax, Arneson & Kunst were all big Moorcock fans, and lifted the law-vs-chaos concept directly from Moorcock. Mike was big on questioning accepted notions of law & order, and in his mythos ultimate law was nearly as stifling of life and freedom as ultimate chaos was destructive. I would argue that far from being "poorly thought out" it is a very rich and philosophically complex system that lends itself well to calling principles into question and turning moral absolutes into morally ambiguous situations.
So no, Gygax and Arneson didn't invent law and chaos.
I will admit that the standard D&D/Pathfinder Law vs. Chaos terminology isn't helpful and is generally poorly thought out. But don't blame me, I wasn't the one who picked those two names, that happened long ago in TSR under Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. As for most non-Evil deities tending towards Chaos under this definition, that's understandable. That and much of our concept of human rights is focused on the rights of individuals. I say it would be hard, but not inherently impossible to come out with a Good aligned focused more on the needs of the group than on the rights of the individuals within it, just take care to remember that Lawful Goods place less emphasis personal right then Chaotic Goods, they don't disregard the concept entirely. So let's make a list and see which ones make the most sense as Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, and see which Lawful Good/Neutral gods can remain Lawful without having to become oppressive.Your law/chaos rather fails to match lawful and chaotic deities because non-evil deities written by Americans (and probably to some extent people of other nations with English legal traditions) tend to value some degree of individualism. Abadar, for instance, is well to the individualistic side of economics, but values order and is thus lawful.
Law/chaos terminology really needs to be discarded. Law and Order aren't the same thing and pretending they are is one of the major sources of alignment confusion.
What could work is to look at different cultural models, as well.
Certain Eastern cultures can place greater emphasis on group harmony, and American values had more "group values" emphasis, historically speaking. When you saw this begin to change is in the 1940s.
Alternately, transform the "placing the greater good of the whole" phrasing into "care for others," which is seen in many charity organizations, such as those that care for the poor. To do so, they are more effective through organization, and are able to use those resources to aid those less fortunate. If you take this concept and make it wider, you have an argument for good governance, which is at the heart of many philosophical doctrines.
Aligning Chaos with American-style Freedom is going to create fewer options for players, because it casts anything opposite it into Totalitarianism. I know someone might read this and go, "but why would anyone do that? It's a fantasy game!" I am not the only one who sees this (re: Chaos == American Freedom), and it's something that once you DO see, it's almost impossible to UNsee.
I find myself wishing more than once that Paizo could have renamed "Law" to "Order." It's better terminology, provides a clearer image, better options, fewer arguments about "you must do everything the law says" and provides a more colorful balance to Chaos with greater options for the player.
It also seems to fit the OP's post a bit well, better.