| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like we managed to pull two full weeks without an alignment thread - we're overdue!
In this essay I expose my version of D&D's alignment that Pathfinder RPG has recuperated. Among other things, it attempts to reconcile the fact that alignments act both a moral compass and sources of planar energy, and the fact that alignments are both influencing and influenced by actions.
All comments are welcome
P.S.: This essay was created with roleplaying in mind, particularity D&D/Pathfinder and does not necessarily reflects my own takes on real-life morality.
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider the four cardinal points of the alignment nomenclature as 'strings' pulling the character to act a certain way. Instead of visualizing each axis as a scale of 0 (Evil or Chaos) to 10 (Good or Law) with neutrality somewhere in the middle, I rather see each alignment as four distinct forces in their own, each scaling from 0 to 10.
Therefore, Evil is not simply defined by the absence of Good. Evil is defined by doing the evil thing, not simply by not doing the good thing. Release the "string" that pulls the character toward Evil and it will naturally gravitate toward neutrality. Same goes for Good, Law and Chaos. Note that at all times, every character is being pulled by all four strings simultaneously. Only, some strings pull harder in some characters than in others. In every Yin, there is a bit of Yang...
In this conceptualization, one does not choose to be lawful or chaotic. Law and Chaos are traits that define a character intrinsically and will affect its most subconscious decisions. In the alignment nomenclature, the ethical axis (Law vs Chaos) is noted first: that's because this part of its alignment happens first in every reaction and decision he or she takes.
On the other hand, the moral axis (Good vs Evil) is a conscious interpretation and if necessary, a modification of the initial reaction triggered by the ethical axis of the character's alignment. Therefore, a (lawful or chaotic) reaction may be heightened or kept in check by the character's Good or Evil alignment. In the case of a Neutral character (on the moral axis) , its initial reactions a free to govern its actions without reins or filters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
.
.
.
.
In essence, Law is logic and order; the ‘mind’ as opposed to the ‘heart’. The principles of Law are based on rationality, organization, trained/learned behavior and developed/acquired reflexes.
Lawful characters often react in pre-programmed, conditioned patterns like a code of conduit, trained maneuvers or simply out of habit. Generally, Truth comes out of their mouth more easily and readily than fabricated lies, but an Evil character may develop a pathological compulsion to lie systematically or seek comfort in telling convenient part of the truth. Similarly, a Good character may withhold or alter the truth to avoid unnecessary suffering.
Order, organization and neatness give lawful characters a certain comfort and they can easily rationalize their place in the hierarchy and see the 'bigger picture'. As a matter of fact, knowing that there is a bigger, stronger organization that backs them off is a soothing thought for Lawful characters. While they will recognize figures of authority, an Evil alignment might bring some characters to envy those in power. Similarly, Good characters might rebel against authorities who cause obvious suffering and unfairness.
Unchecked by Good or Evil, Law may lead into excessive rigidity, xenophobia and intolerance of another's differences. This can lead to cold-hearted or downright heartless characters. Lawfulness can also lead to close-mindedness and to a resistance to better, newer ideas for the sake of maintaining traditions and status quo.
In essence, Chaos is instincts and emotions; the ‘heart’ as opposed to the 'mind'. The principles of Chaos are based on the individual and its own needs, inherent strengths and natural abilities.
Chaotic characters react by instinct and gives free reigns to their emotions. This makes them flexible, adaptable more likely to work on a case to case basis. This does not necessarily make them born psychopaths although an Evil alignment may encourage destructive impulses. Good characters on the other hand will learn to harness this proximity to their emotions to empathize with suffering creatures and offer their help if they can find enough love for them.
Chaotic characters will naturally seek and respect freedom (although Evil characters may grow jealous of those enjoying more freedom than them), won't be prone to take things for granted and will respect individuals that have proven themselves. A chaotic character puts the individual (self or other) in the foreground. For the Chaotic character, there are no feelings greater than the conviction of being in control of its own destiny.
Unchecked by Good or Evil, Chaos may lead to recklessness, irresponsibility and arbitrary actions. This can lead to irrational and unpredictable characters. In its extreme form, Chaos can also lead to destructive 'changing for the sake of changing' behaviours and to the unreasonable abandon of traditions.
In essence, Good is compassion, respect of life and the wish to nurture and protect it. Its principles are based on one's ability to feel its surroundings and empathize with its torments.
Good is more than avoiding doing the 'wrong' things, it actively seeks to make the world a better place for all. While basic emotions are prompted by one's chaotic side, one is different and more sublime than any others: love. In its most simplistic terms, Good is the ability to love and of everything possible to a man or woman that knows this emotion. Love is not merely desire, it is the source of friendship, is at the heart of compassion and forms the basis of everything that Good stands for.
Evil is not merely the absence of love and compassion. In essence, Evil is depravity and conscious destruction. Its principles are based on fear, pain and intentionally induced suffering, either for pleasure or as a mean to accomplish one's goal.
If Good is defined by its ability to love, Evil is defined by hatred. Hatred is more vile than anger and more powerful than fear. What Evil do, it does it in the name of hatred. Lawful character may nurture a contained and slow-burning hatred, while more chaotic characters will let hatred taint their other emotions out of rage. In its most extreme definition, Evil has no friends; it is incapable of trust and exists only for its own gains and desires. Evil yearns, Evil lusts but never loves. Sometimes Evil surrounds and get organized in associations that emulates friendship, but Evil is always and forever alone.
If the alignment system is meant as a roleplaying guide to the character's behavior, there need to be another element to complete the set: judgment. Judgment is the moderator, that voice of reason that say "hold it, killing this guy might not be a good idea" regardless of which alignment prompted the act.
Note that judgment always pulls you away from your alignment, sometimes with dire consequences. Judgment (or rather bad judgment) can make a paladin fall, or the evil overlord help a nation. It is judgment that makes the most lawful executioner release a criminal go or the most chaotic character behave himself in public.
Judgment should not be quantified and noted down the same way other elements of the alignment are. It should remain at the discretion of the player, both as a tool for roleplay and a moderator for its actions. It is what makes the character responsible for its actions, with the possibility of making mistakes, and be more than a mere puppet of the outer planes. It makes us sentient beings, what we would call 'humans'.
An interesting conceptualization, but I view the Law and Chaos alignments a bit differently. Law represents rules, imo. Any behaviour that involves following rules is a lawful inclination. Codes of conduct, obedience to civil or religious commandments, respect for authority and those who wield it, etc., are all contrary to the Chaotic alignment. That is not to say that chaotic characters cannot exhibit any of those traits as virtually no one is 100% any particular point on the alignment map (as you allude to with your scaling). Chaos is about the personal freedom resulting from a lack of rules (or at least, a lack of adherence to them). Whether that respect for personal freedom extends to the freedom of others is a function of their Good/Evil quantum. A chaotic evil character would have no compunction about enslaving others for his own gain, while a chaotic good one would obviously feel the call to free them.
The heart/head, rational/emotional connection rings a bit off for me.
And I also feel that the Good/Evil is the first, most basic origin of a character's reaction to a given situation. At a subconcious level they would be repulsed or inspired by a thing, and how we experience that visceral reaction is shaped by our rules/freedom filter.
Just my $.02.
Law represents rules, imo. Any behaviour that involves following rules is a lawful inclination.
One of the issue I have with Law = rules is that it defines Chaos by lack of Law (chaos = following no rules, Law = following all rules). Also, rules often conflicts, forcing the purely Lawful being to disregard some rules (a chaotic behaviour) in order to pursue Law, which I find disconcerting. I rather say that Law is order, from which rules are derived (among other things).
The heart/head, rational/emotional connection rings a bit off for me.
That's interesting, as rationality is one's ability to follow the rules of logic. Its about organization and order, which are also fundamental to the making of rules.
And I also feel that the Good/Evil is the first, most basic origin of a character's reaction to a given situation.
That I'm not sure about and I stand by what I said.
A person's reactions are first based on its reflexes (some instinctive like fear or anger, others are conditioned like many martial art moves), and then considered whether this reaction is good or bad (morally speaking). Everyone feels anger, but the Good character will not let it rage out of control. The way I see it, anger (a chaotic reaction) happens first and is then reined back back Good. The little angle and the little devil on our shoulders communicate fast, but not as fast as instinctive (chaotic)or conditioned (lawful) reactions.
But I agree that in order to accept that theory, you have to accept that Law = order and Chaos = instincts, which you are not sold on.
Honour is a basic code of conduit, which in some case can be very rigid and restrictive.
In D&D, honour is traditionally sided to the camp of Law, a concept which I never really agreed with. My biggest gripe: it doesn't fit with one of the biggest staple of fantasy, the seemingly chaotic barbarian with a strong personal code of honour.
Honour is a measure of one's personal dignity, which must be elevated and maintained through a certain behaviour and can be challenged by those who contest its integrity. This makes honour both a measure of self-righteousness and of social status, allowing different avenues leading to the exact same honorable behaviour.
For the paladin, honour is part of the mental fortress that makes him less likely flinch in his convictions. He believes that people deserve respect - even his enemies - and will act honorably as a behaviour he owes to the world. For him, his honour is a lawful trait as it becomes a conditioned set of reactions that further helps him to resist the pull of the strings of Evil.
For the chaotic but noble-at-heart barbarian, honour takes a different road. He believes that strength makes one right, and that this strength must also be applied in the way he treats other. He needs this social status in order to be acclaimed, but more importantly, his honorable behaviour helps him confirm his own convictions. Strength demands that one does not act treacherously, and this honour proves that he is above these weaknesses.
The paladin and the barbarian might not always see eye to eye, but their behaviour will meet at this code of honour that they both share for different reasons.
'findel
I run into trouble with law vs chaos all the time. This is mainly because I have a character that is strongly both without being neutral and isn't internally conflicted about it.
She is an advocate of freedom very much for humanist/rationalist reasons and goes so far as to have a problem with both gods of good and evil for imposing their ideals on mortals without their consent. In addition, she dislikes the emotional and instinctive adherence to law, order and tradition without consideration of the benefits and flaws inherent in the system.
To wedge it all into a pithy saying: A rational mind is a free mind. Laws are only necessary for those who cannot think for themselves.
What alignment would you call that?
A person's reactions are first based on its reflexes (some instinctive like fear or anger, others are conditioned like many martial art moves), and then considered whether this reaction is good or bad (morally speaking). Everyone feels anger, but the Good character will not let it rage out of control. The way I see it, anger (a chaotic reaction) happens first and is then reined back back Good. The little angle and the little devil on our shoulders communicate fast, but not as fast as instinctive (chaotic)or conditioned (lawful) reactions.But I agree that in order to accept that theory, you have to accept that Law = order and Chaos = instincts, which you are not sold on.
I think this is a generalization that isn't necessarily helpful. It automatically assumes a dominance of the Law/Chaos (even if that dominance fades away in seconds) that isn't necessarily true. Some people are more dominated by Good/Evil, without being Neutral in respect to Law/Chaos. An in game example to me would be an Outsider who is Lawful Good, but only has the Good subtype and not the Lawful. The Good would probably dominate even instincts.
Anger isn't inherently Chaotic imo. It can manifest itself in many Chaotic ways though. Imagine standing in line at the DMV, you finally get up front and while talking with the clerk you put your foot in your mouth and insult them. The point out an error on your form, tell you to go correct it and take a new number. That strikes me as not very chaotic.
I think this is a generalization that isn't necessarily helpful.
Personally, I don't think its more generalizing than many other assumptions concerning alignment in D&D. On the contrary, I find it allows to "de-generalize" the whole concept. Whether it is helpful or not is a legitimate question however.
As it stands as one of the basis of this conceptualization, I do believe that it helps, but I note your objection.
It automatically assumes a dominance of the Law/Chaos (even if that dominance fades away in seconds) that isn't necessarily true. Some people are more dominated by Good/Evil, without being Neutral in respect to Law/Chaos.
Actually, by having Good or Evil having the "final word", this conceptualization of the alignment puts dominance of morality (Good and Evil) over ethics (Law and Chaos). Interestingly enough, I was expecting to be attacked on the fact that I diminished the role of Law and Chaos too much...
An in game example to me would be an Outsider who is Lawful Good, but only has the Good subtype and not the Lawful. The Good would probably dominate even instincts.
Ahhh, but outsiders are not truly ethical and moral beings; they are formed of the same "energy" that pulls the strings of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil. I didn't make this up; its all in the RAW and its implications that I want to preserve and consolidate. Outsiders have no "choice" of good or evil; they are not free beings like mortals are.
Anger isn't inherently Chaotic imo.
Well, anger is one of the primary emotions (according to most anyways) and as an emotion, it opposes mental order and rationality. If we agree that the latest defines Law, we are forced to conclude that whatever is defined by emotions opposes Law; Chaos in this case. This is simplistic and binary, but such is Alignment in D&D.
You could off course reject that rationality is order which is Law, in which case I have no case.
'findel
Imagine standing in line at the DMV, you finally get up front and while talking with the clerk you put your foot in your mouth and insult them. The point out an error on your form, tell you to go correct it and take a new number. That strikes me as not very chaotic.
I'm not sure if I get your example very well. I don't really see when anger comes in.
But using a similar example, I'd define the behaviour of the guy that throws a tantrum at the clerk at the DMV because he waited too long, or because the clerk cannot process its file since it's badly filled, as chaotic.
Imagine standing in line at the DMV, you finally get up front and while talking with the clerk you put your foot in your mouth and insult them. The point out an error on your form, tell you to go correct it and take a new number. That strikes me as not very chaotic.I'm not sure if I get your example very well. I don't really see when anger comes in.
But using a similar example, I'd define the behaviour of the guy that throws a tantrum at the clerk at the DMV because he waited too long, or because the clerk cannot process its file since it's badly filled, as chaotic.
The point is that they are insulted. As a result of the insult, instead of helping you correct the form (and thus resolve your issue faster), they use their bureaucratic authority to send you to the back of the line and wait again as a form of punishment. The punishment isn't for an incorrect form, it's for the insult.
Speaking as a person who has worked in a bureaucracy, not only have I seen it done, I've done it.
For me the "heart/mind" distinction is a poor one, because the distinction only appears in our minds... where all this is happening anyways.
I see a better distinction between Law/Chaos as External/Internal. A Lawful person/being is going to be more concerned with how relationships and interactions affect other relationships and interactions, while a Chaotic person/being will be focused on how things impact the self.
Lawful Good: how does society better itself
Chaotic Good: how do I better myself
Lawful Evil: how can I use others to get what I want
Chaotic Evil: how can I get what I want from others
From a purely modern view, some of the advances in science would point to the vast majority of human behavior being Chaotic. Studies involving MRI scans show the same parts of the brain being used to make money decisions as things concerning food, shelter and safety (a very "old" part of the brain stem that is very primal and instinctual). Even "rational" behavior is often controlled by irrational forces within the brain. Our brain tells us we're in control and we believe it, but often the chemical forces within are much stronger than our "will".
For me the "heart/mind" distinction is a poor one, because the distinction only appears in our minds... where all this is happening anyways.
I see a better distinction between Law/Chaos as External/Internal. A Lawful person/being is going to be more concerned with how relationships and interactions affect other relationships and interactions, while a Chaotic person/being will be focused on how things impact the self.
Fair enough. I've considered External/Internal for Law/Chaos for a long time, and had trouble expressing it in somewhat coherent ways. Maybe I should go back to my first intuition, but board members chewed me even worst than now for community/self being staples of Good and Evil rather than Law and Chaos.
As for modern conceptions, I'm deliberately keeping a more "archaic" conception of things because I believe it will fit better in a more archaic world, so to speak.
We know now that basic emotions are induced by bio-chemical reactions to external stimuli, which in some case has to be cognitively analyzed and identified before being triggered. Sounds pretty 'orderly' to me... As soon as we begin to study our the microscopic and macroscopic environment, concepts of order and chaos gets all confused and nearly nonexistent. Yet D&D acknowledges Law and Chaos as two opposed and dominant forces (alongside Good and Evil) and part of the exercise was to built from the blocks I've been given. Otherwise, I would probably done something similar to Mortuum and used new concepts and terminology.
'findel
@ Umbral Reaver
Part of my "string" conception was to be able to explain that a character may be Neutral either because the strings of Law and Chaos have weak pull on the character OR that both strings pull equally strongly on the same character. And yes, I could imagine a character equally pulled by Good and Evil. That would make a character constantly in moral conflict rather than uninterested in moral conflicts.
But to answer you question more directly, I would see the character as Neutral Good, giving to her reason and judgement more than blind attachment or emotional abandonment in order to make the world a better place for all.
More traditional DMs might see her as chaotic however for her tendency to rebel against things.
@ Mikase
Dotting? Is... that a good thing?
@Mcarvin
Thanks!
@ King Joey and Irontruth
I hope I don't come-up as an insatiable know-it-all or obstinate poster. Your comments are very welcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PALADINS
Lets first stress the fact that before and above all, the paladin is a champion of Good, not of Law. Paladins get to detect and smite Evil, not Law. Paladins swear to fight the influence of hell and the forces of the abyss, not the randomness of Limbo (although I admit that a Slaad is unlikely to become the paladin’s best pal…). Anyhow, you get the idea.
Yet paladins are required to be lawful to progress as such. It should also be noted that the code of conduct, which the paladins are also bound to follow, has nothing with being lawful; like honour, a code of conduit is not something that should be limited to lawful characters.
For the paladin, Law takes the form of a mental discipline, a buoy that helps her stand by her convictions and never flinch (which puts Good above all, to the point of loosing her paladinhood by committing voluntary Evil). Anger and other emotional reactions may cause her to be unfair, to fail in her task or somehow cause involuntary evil which in her mind, simply cannot be allowed.
To a great extent, the paladin has taught herself to ignore her instincts and put her faith thoroughly in her cause. Strict adherence to virtues such as honor, temperance and faith, are all ‘tools’ to keep the paladin on the right track, but are not what makes the paladin lawful; those trait simply make the paladin honorable, self-controlled and faithful. What makes the paladin lawful is that she has learned to ‘pre-programmed’ these traits to act before her instinct and basic emotions. The difference is subtle but in this case vital.
MONKS
Traditionally, Monks are required to be lawful because their training demands discipline. In this conceptualization, discipline is a trait that is not exclusive to lawful characters. So why can't the monk be chaotic if chaotic characters are capable of discipline?
The answer is similar to that of the paladin: monks are required to be lawful because the very nature of their training demands that they condition their mind and body to react in certain defensive patterns and offensive katas to such an extent that it becomes instinctive. Only individuals of Lawful alignment are capable of reprogramming their instincts in such a way; they are the living proof that perfecting your mind can perfect your body.
BARBARIANS
Barbarians cannot progress as such and loose their ability to rage if they become lawful. This makes sense if we interpret Law as one’s inclinations to supplant is own instinct with pre-programmed reactions, which goes against the very principle of the barbarian’s rage. Rage is an internal, primal force which the barbarian has learned to unleash, not to contain.
Fascinating read.
Dotted.
See, this is why I think that either the concept of Law, or the concept of Minks needs work.
Look at the massive number of styles basd on animals, drunken style, and others that are not based on "deep tradition" and intense meditation, and all the traditional manner, but studying how to kick but like an animal (monkey being one of my favorite to watch)
Not sure if that's supposed to be an argument in favour of this conceptualization or against it.
Kung-fu styles mimicking animals are, well, mimicking the behaviour of animals. They require no less training and dedication to master than other styles. Not that I see a chaotic character incapable of training and dedication, but learning the animalistic styles of kung-fu still requires a total re-training of your instincts, which is according to this conceptualization of the alignment is lawful. Improvisation and adaptation on the battlefield only comes after the mastery of the basics. Besides, mastering monkey style traditionally requires massive amount of meditation and is deeply implented in kung-fu's traditions.
Same goes with drunken boxing. If it appears chaotic, it's only because its performer has learned and trained these moves until they become a second nature. There is nothing random in drunken boxing except that it is supposed to appear as such, making it unpredictable and therefore hard to counter. It does take a lot of "cues" from mercurial and circumstantial references (such as where the center of gravity is at this particular moment etc) and part of the trick consist in properly "reading" these cues and apply the appropriate reaction. But is also true for every other martial arts.
Now off the book between you and me, I'm not sold on the fact that one HAS to be lawful to master martial arts, but part of the exercise was to create an alternated conception of the alignment that would fit with the present RAW.
[edit] Also and perhaps more importantly, there is a lot more to the monk than martial arts. The simple goal of transcending its own body and soul into something perfectly purified and controlled weights more in the balance of Law than Chaos.
'findel
Fantastic write-up Laurefindel.
Almost the exact way I run alignment in my games; always wanted to throw out my ideas for discussion, but you have done it far more eloquently than I ever could have...
Great stuff! This is all clear and interesting and it's hard to imagine a better explanation for alignment as it exists in pathfinder.
However, when it comes to the class restrictions, it feels too much like it's bending to accommodate parts of the game system which are confused and inconsistent.
You disentangle the confusion of concepts in the law/chaos axis nicely, but the class restrictions clearly weren't made with these views of the alignments in mind, or any consistent definitions at all.
To me, it seems obvious that paladins should be allowed to be of any good alignment if law doesn't cover living by a code of honour. Their lawful alignment limitation seems to be all about the things which you define as optional extras to the law/chaos axis. Barbarians, however, should clearly be able to be of any alignment at all, unless chaos is as you say it is and the extras are only extras.
The inherent contradiction is visible even with the vague definitions in the rulebooks when it comes to arcane tricksters and monks. Tricksters are of any non-lawful alignment because they like to play tricks, but monkey-faced monks are of any lawful alignment for the exact same reason.
I think that if you're going to declare a distinction between these two interpretations of law and chaos in your game, the mechanics need to change to reflect that; if anarchism isn't inherently chaotic, but the righteous fury of a crusader is, you're already using a variant rule. I'd recommend either adding another axis to represent the other aspect of the law and chaos dichotomy, or simply lifting the alignment restrictions that don't fit.
However, when it comes to the class restrictions, it feels too much like it's bending to accommodate parts of the game system which are confused and inconsistent.
You disentangle the confusion of concepts in the law/chaos axis nicely, but the class restrictions clearly weren't made with these views of the alignments in mind, or any consistent definitions at all.
I give you that much. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of alignment restriction for classes, even if I can admit that some classes might appeal to a certain alignment more than other. If appears a bit "forced", that because it is. I was trying to work within the existent system but perhaps you are right: I should fully assume my houseruliness...
What I do find important in the end is that the character is played consistently and appropriately. I don't mind if a player want's a chaotic monk*, but I'd hope that he/she wouldn't play it exactly as a chaotic barbarian. Personalty traits should be unique to a character and especially, not imposed by / reserved to a certain alignment.
*Our planescape game didn't survive the 3rd edition transition, but I was fiddling with the concepts of Githzerai monks - the ultimate concept of chaotic monks IMO - and how chaos pushed to its extreme can be indistinguishable from law in its extreme. That was also my interpretation of the Transcendent Order, whereas "transcendence" comes from intuition, order and instinct made one.
I am a discordian, so I can be considered something of an authority on the subject of the relationship between order and chaos.
Even in scientific terms, order is only the potential for chaos and that potential must one day be fulfilled. Creating order in a particular region of spacetime always involves reducing order by a larger amount elsewhere, so in a way, order is more chaotic than chaos.
*Ahem* Anyway, if you ask me, the whole ethical axis is total bunk. I leave it in my alignment house rules because it doesn't do much harm and removing it kills some spells and magic items, which it would be a lot of effort to replace for a relatively small return.
You manage to make sense of it, but I'm not sure the names fit your ideas. Calling the alignments Head and Heart or Discipline and Impulse might be more appropriate.
Ever notice that law and chaos aren't opposites anyway? chaos is essentially disorder (unless we're talking Erisian Chaos, but why the hell would we do that?), and the opposite of disorder is order. Law is the imposition of a specific order by an authority, (or a limit of the possible in the case of physical laws). The opposite of law, for better or worse, is freedom. I think that's where things get jumbled up. Alignment by RAW is comparing apples to oranges.
Law isn't the opposite of freedom. A law that inhibits someone from enslaving you does restrict their "freedom" to do what they want, but the net gain is in favor of freedom. There are examples where the absence of order or law can restrict freedom as well. A traffic jam without rules quickly becomes a parking lot you can't drive out of.
This is why I favor a collective/individual distinction for law/chaos. Using this distinction, Law would always favor the needs of the many against the needs of the few. If a smaller portion of a group had to be sacrificed to serve the survival of the group, it would be deemed correct. A Chaotic perspective would instead see the needs of the individual as always taking precedent.
Law, or the collective, becomes concerned with the relationship between all things in it's purview. To make the distinction from Good/Evil, it isn't why, but how people interact with one another. By following the same rules, society becomes more efficient and structured, allowing both individuals and society to flourish. Through unity, strength is gained.
Chaos, the individual, becomes concerned with personal interactions and development. This is a viewpoint that each person is responsible for their own interactions and how they deal with the world. All people are different and it is the individual who is best suited to make decisions for themselves.
If you look at the historical examples that monks are derived from, it's a Confucian society, where it is society as a whole that matters and the individual is subservient to that. The monks are both the epitome of that philosophy and it's caretakers, so to join their ranks you would either have to be concerned, or would become concerned, with the ordering of society.
Within the game context in reference to alignment, they would exist for a similar purpose. The monastery itself is a place of learning and teaching for the benefit of society. Using themselves as examples of what can be achieved through knowledge and discipline, they encourage others to follow in their footsteps.
The Paladin becomes concerned not only with doing Good, but also ensuring that society does Good and that society itself is protected. He holds himself accountable to the decisions made by society, but it is Evil that is his primary foe, and if society presents itself as Evil, he will go against it, but his goal isn't to ensure personal freedom, but rather to replace it with a better society.
The Barbarian, as seen as noble tribal warrior, maintain his personal code, but it is one that is determined by him during the course of his life. He may have learned from his father or tribal elders, but he answers only to himself at the end of the day. If he is a tribal leader, when a problem arises, he fixes that individual problem but does not make a new rule for the tribe to follow.
That's an interesting point, but I still say law is the opposite of freedom. In some cases, if everyone follows a law they end up with more freedom, but at its heart, law is when you want to do something and somebody says "No."
For example, if one person wasn't subject to the law in your traffic jam analogy, they would have more freedom than everybody else. They might get smashed to bits when they run a red light, restricting their freedom to walk. They might restrict other people's freedom by causing delays. But you don't truly own anything unless you can destroy it. The freedom to risk or even throw away your own freedom is still a freedom. Equally, the freedom to oppress others is no less a freedom than freedom of speech. To be absolutely free, you'd have to be allowed to enslave the universe, or give up that absolute freedom and pass it on to another.
I see freedom kind of like an unsteady tower being built up towards absolute personal power. At the bottom, there's no freedom at all; everything that isn't mandatory is forbidden and thus everything is utterly stable. As you build higher, people get more free and so can change things. The tower is less stable the higher you build it, because people are empowered to alter it as they see fit. Build it high enough and anybody can push it down.
Another analogy would be gluttony. If I eat to much, I might vomit. Then it would be as though I hadn't eaten anything at all, but that doesn't mean stopping before you really want to isn't the opposite of continuing until you regret it, or that empty space in my stomach doesn't decrease as food in my stomach increases.
...and now I'm hungry and slightly nauseous.
The way I see it, freedom comes form the liberty to make choices.
In their extremes, neither order nor chaos allow someone to consciously choose anything and therefore, neither defines (or excludes) freedom.
'findel
Which is another interesting point. I like this thread.
If you look at the historical examples that monks are derived from, it's a Confucian society, where it is society as a whole that matters and the individual is subservient to that. The monks are both the epitome of that philosophy and it's caretakers, so to join their ranks you would either have to be concerned, or would become concerned, with the ordering of society.My problem with that is just as many eastern traditions of Monls come from Taoist philosophy, which is much closer to the Chaotic axis.
Im also liking this thread.
I love philosophy discussions
I think the individual/societal split would still apply. In this division, people grouping together to interpret a religion, teach it to each other and outsiders and attempt to hold them accountable is Lawful. The monastery exists to teach the "correct" version of Taoism.
On the other hand, a hermit taoist would imply an almost purely Chaotic viewpoint using these definitions. He would be concerned only with his own relationship with his religion and the world. Separating himself from society and it's power structures strengthens his own individuality and his own beliefs, so even if he reenters society to teach others, he is teaching them not so that they can learn to be like him, but to make their own decisions.
Bumping this thread, although I don't have much to add other than the re-affirmation that an Alignment system can contribute a lot to the game, as long as it remains a conflict of objective forces.
In my opinion, games revolving around the subjective notions of good and evil are better served without an alignment system altogether (which as many have proved can include D&D). As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Law, Chaos, Good and Evil are tangible forces like positive and negative energy has a certain appeal to me.
That obviously wouldn't remove the subjectivity of good and evil: Good and Evil remaining perfect and ideal (objective) concepts, us imperfect mortals are doomed to never achieve ultimate Good (or be depraved enough to be absolutely Evil). So while avoiding cultural bias is virtually impossible, I refuse to accept that what is socially acceptable within a society is Good. Things like human sacrifice and slavery can be performed in relatively humane ways, but they will always remain an obstacle to Good in the end. Characters however, may see it differently...
For the same reasons, I refuse to simplify Law as 'doing what the majority does' or 'doing what the authorities would like you to do'. Like Good and Evil, Law and Chaos need to be objective concepts, which civil laws and codes of conduct aren't necessarily. Social rules and civil laws are simply a code of how individuals need to act in order for their society to survive and prosper. Again, geographical and geopolitical differences will create different and possibly contradictory notions of what being 'lawful' means, thus making these notions thoroughly subjective.
From that I still adhere to my concept of order/reason vs. instinct/emotion to represent Law and Chaos in a character. Note that this doesn't prevent a highly logical character from feeling emotions and vise versa, it mainly represents which will impact his behavior the most in its day-to-day life; its mind or its heart.
just thought I'd continue the conversation...
'findel
Minor redux on my Alignment tread
Notable changes:
A character's alignment has four components set on two different axis: Law and Chaos make the Ethical Axis while Good and Evil form the Moral Axis. Each of these are temporal forces of the universe that can be detected, measured and even made flesh (so to speak). All four forces exert a certain influence on characters, like strings pulling with more or less tension toward each of their pure and universal ideals. Note that every character is being pulled by all four strings simultaneously; when two opposed forces exert the same influence on the character, its said to be neutral. Only, some strings pull stronger in some character than in others, who then acquire traits from the dominant component(s). This becomes the character's alignment: a spiritual compass affecting both the character's morality and personality.
Alignment is first defined by the Ethical Axis: Law vs Chaos. Characters are not always conscious of their ethical alignment, as its influence acts more on the subconscious level. In the series of event that forms a decision, the ethical influence happens first. Law and Chaos form the initial reaction to most situations.
The Alignment is then define bu the Moral Axis: Good vs Evil. Alignment is thus noted as Chaotic-Good, Lawful-Neutral, Neutral-Evil or Neutral-Neutral (also called True Neutral) for example. Characters are usually more aware of the moral component of their alignment and may consciously struggle to maintain or even change it. If Law and Chaos form the initial reaction to a situation, Good and Evil have the final word adjusting, modifying or preventing this reaction if necessary. Obviously, this all happen virtually instantaneously and since ince all strings pull simultaneously, Neutral characters don't necessarily have a less complex personality.
In essence, Law is logic and order; the ‘mind’ as opposed to the ‘heart’. Lawful characters instinctively react in accordance to a code of conduit, trained maneuvers and procedures or simply out of habit. The principles of Law are based on rationality, collectivity, organization, trained/learned behaviour and developed/acquired reflexes.
Unchecked by Good or Evil, Law may lead into excessive rigidity, xenophobia and intolerance of other's differences. This can lead to cold-hearted or in extreme cases, to the incapacity to feel any emotions. Lawfulness can also lead to close-mindedness and a resistance to newer, better ideas for the sake of maintaining traditions and status-quo.
In essence, Chaos is intuition and inspiration; the ‘heart’ as opposed to the 'mind'. Chaotic characters instinctively react according to what their intuition and current emotional state inspires them to do. The principles of Chaos are based on the individual (self or other) and its own personal needs, strengths and abilities.
Unchecked by Good or Evil, Chaos may lead to recklessness, irresponsibility and arbitrary actions. This can lead to irrational and unpredictable characters. In its extreme form, Chaos can also lead to destructive 'changing for the sake of changing' behaviours and to the unreasonable abandon of customs and traditions.
In essence, Good is compassion, respect of life and the wish to nurture and protect it; a good creature will compromise or put at risk its own quality of life with the sole intention of improving the existence of another being, without expecting any personal gain or reward. The fundamental principles of Good are based on one's ability to feel its surroundings and empathise with its torments. Good means more than avoiding doing the 'wrong' things, it means actively seeking to do the 'right' things.
Evil is not merely the absence of love and compassion; Evil is depravity and conscious destruction. An evil creature will worsen the existence of another, with no regards for that fact and in full awareness the consequences of of its actions. The principles of Evil are based on fear, pain and intentional suffering, either for pleasure or as a mean to accomplish one's goal.
As usual, all comments are welcome.
'findel
I agree with the thought of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil being concrete aspects, but I disagree with the idea that alignment is the best thing to serve the notions of good, Evil, Law and Chaos.
This comment intrigues me. Care to elaborate on this?
'findel
Alignments were done away with, because they provided too strong of a predefined allegiance to one side or another. Instead, the first few levels were meant to serve to flesh the character out, and later, the Party and the individual PCs would decide where they would side in this conflict...
Right.
Don't get me wrong, I find what you did very interesting, but that's not what I was aiming for. On the contrary, I was attempting to work with what was there, especially reconciling alignment components as planar forces and alignment as behavioral compass.
I do agree that the RaW alignment system tends to allow a narrow(ish) number of preset personalities*, and this essay on alignment was attempting - among other things - to widen the possibilities without doing away with the alignment system.
*As an aside, that's why I don't like descriptions based on what the character (of that alignment) does, as opposed to what the alignment is. At best, it provides one good archetype of that alignment, often pigeonholing the alignment to that very description. At worst, the descriptions are contradictory and a single behavior can fit several alignments.
The principle of 'strings' was introduced to illustrate that a character could feel the simultaneous pull of two opposite alignments, resulting in an inner conflict (which is the interesting part of a character's personality IMO). The Alignment indicated on the sheet is meant to be a resulting 'picture' of the pull of those strings (and interact with the different planar forces), but the idea is that this alignment can indeed change throughout the campaign.
At any case the articles I found about Jungian personality traits were an interesting read, but are unlikely to change (in application) my vision of the alignment system for the purpose of playing D&D and its Pathfinder heir. They may have more influence on another project of mine however...
'findel
Reaper Miniatures
|
LG - I do what is right for all, using previously proven methods, because that is what I know will work. CG has good intentions, but their methods are prone to fail as often as they succeed. As the saying goes 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' LE is Selfish, but unlike CE, I know the law will keep their evil in check. CE is unfettered. They do what they want and nothing will stop them, not even the Law.
CG - I do what I believe is right, even if I must break a few rules. LG has good intentions, but they are restricted by the law, in what good they can do. CE is impossible to predict, but that also limits their power. LE is the most fearsome Alignment, because not only are they evil, but it provides them an avenue to institutionalize their actions.
LE - I do what is in my best interest, but I always follow the rules, especially my own. CE is a fearsome adversary, because they cannot be kept in check, like my LE subordinates. LG is a bane of my existence, but unlike CG, they will be slower to act, because my actions are not against the law, and they will go through all legal methods in order to fight me. CG is scary to me, because they will fight me tooth and nail, and they will not be stopped by the fact that the law is on my side.
CE - I do what is in my best interest, and the law will not stop me. LE is a potential problem for me, because they can use the power held previously defined institutions to fight me. CG is going to oppose me, but they do not have the power of the law on their side, and if I play my cards right, I can get the law to slow them down. LG is my archnemesis. They will bring the Law against me, and unlike LE, they will fight me on an ideological ground, rather than only if I get in their way.
This works pretty well for me, assuming that you mean "the Law" to mean "our society/culture's rules - the system/the "man"/bureaucracy - the government and its agents and agencies"
Related to your analogy of strings. I thought about if the axis of law and chaos was logos vs pathos.
That would leave ethos pulling double duty for good/Evil.
It kind of makes me want to explore a 3 axis system, with levels of influence from logos, ethos and pathos.
Sorry for the digression, just pondering.
Related to your analogy of strings. I thought about if the axis of law and chaos was logos vs pathos.
That would leave ethos pulling double duty for good/Evil.It kind of makes me want to explore a 3 axis system, with levels of influence from logos, ethos and pathos.
That could lead to an interesting system, but for the sake of this essay, I'm more concerned about working with Law, Chaos, Good and Evil as the four corners of upper-planar energies that form the soul.
This directly echos the four corner inner-planar energies of Earth, Air, Fire and Water as the building blocks of matter. I like the symmetry.
In that light, I needed to give an intrinsic definition unique to all four alignment parts (like Logos vs Pathos), as opposed to set one alignment as the absence of the other (like ethos). It seems that the Greek were less interested in the definition of good or evil and more interested in what was socially acceptable or not...
Perhaps this
Good: Benefit others above all
Evil: Benefit self above all
Still mutually exclusive, but at least its a pure concept that doesn't use the other word in its own definition