|
Because you know, there aren't already 1,001 threads about this, but still I wanted to throw this out and see what people thought.
To be clear, I realize these may not be the RAW or even RAI views of alignment, just my own way of looking at it that helps quash a multitude of arguments that seem to arise from this hot button issue.
Good is caring about the welfare and well being of others before your own. It's about wanting to put a stop to the actions of Evil. Evil is about selfishness and hatred. Enjoyment in, or at least indifference to, the suffering of others. Law is having a code of conduct you follow and belief that rules exist for a reason. Not everyone's code of conduct will be the same, so just because the nation you are in considers something to be unlawful doesn't mean you have to too. Chaos is about thinking rules are for the weak willed and simple minded who need to be told what to do. It can be about anarchy, but doesn't have to be. It can be as simple as believing that no one's opinion but your own matters.
My feeling is that the fluff of most settings reflect that the law/chaos axis is very subjective, but then the rules assume that if you are lawful you must always follow the rules, regardless of who's rules they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intentional good is selfless.
Consequential good creates social harmony and well-being.
Intentional evil is malice.
Consequential evil creates hatred and unnecessary suffering.
Intentional law is creating structure of behavior.
Consequential law reinforces structured behavior.
Intentional chaos is rebellion and liberation.
Consequential chaos gives influence to anarchy.
Intentional neutrality is balance.
Consequential neutrality is ignorance/innocence.
Most folks confuse consequence and intent. They should really be separated.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."
~Hands you back your 2 cents.
Sorry it's not for sale.
Chaos is about thinking rules are for the weak willed and simple minded who need to be told what to do.
What if this becomes someone's code of conduct, like in the punk movement? Would it be lawful of chaotic?
What if this becomes someone's code of conduct, like in the punk movement? Would it be lawful of chaotic?Chaos is about thinking rules are for the weak willed and simple minded who need to be told what to do.
The thing is, there aren't any gradations of the alignment system written into the rules; I'd love it if the notation "Lawful (chaotic) Good" made any sense at all, likewise "Lawful Good (evil)"; but it seems to me that very early in the evolution of the game, the designers (looking at TSR) said, "Let's put all that in a sack and call it neutral."
The thing is, there aren't any gradations of the alignment system written into the rules; I'd love it if the notation "Lawful (chaotic) Good" made any sense at all, likewise "Lawful Good (evil)"; but it seems to me that very early in the evolution of the game, the designers (looking at TSR) said, "Let's put all that in a sack and call it neutral."
I am reminded of the old bit in the Monstrous Manual where it would say
Blank but with Blank tendencies. Ex: Lawful Evil but with Lawful Neutral Tendencies.
|
I really liked Monte Cook's approach to alignment in Arcana Evolved.
"...Characters should decide for themselves what is good and what is evil, the way real people do. ... Very few characters think of themselves as evil. The truth is, such concepts are relative.
Yet even without alignments, villains still do terrible things to further their own goals. Heroes still make great sacrifices to stop them. The classic conflicts all remain. But now there are even more. Two noble and altruistic characters might oppose each other, for example. Their personal ideologies might even cause each of them to define the other as 'evil.'
Characters with a conscience still act responsibly, and those with a code of conduct still adhere to it: Having no alignment is not an excuse for all characters to act wantonly. As in the real world, things are much more interesting if there are not nine alignments but, in fact, an infinite number of them—each character becomes his own alignment."
|
|
What if this becomes someone's code of conduct, like in the punk movement? Would it be lawful of chaotic?Chaos is about thinking rules are for the weak willed and simple minded who need to be told what to do.
Following a code of conduct doesn't necessarily make one lawful, take drow society for example, CE, everyone follows the un-written 'rules', but they are still chaotic because the 'rules' are chaotic and promote anarchy.
I put the rules in quotation makes because really, they aren't rules, they are more guidelines in that example and that i think is the difference between a lawful code of conduct and a chaotic code of conduct. A lawful person will follow his or her code of conduct or rules even if it means the person would be put at a disadvantage. A chaotic person would follow their code of conduct or guidelines to a means that would give them an advantage, but the moment that following their guidelines would mean a disadvantage they probably won't follow the guidelines, or their guidelines would change such that they'd have the advantage again
|
What if this becomes someone's code of conduct, like in the punk movement? Would it be lawful of chaotic?Chaos is about thinking rules are for the weak willed and simple minded who need to be told what to do.
Well, there are punks and there are posers.
Punk isn't about a "code". The lame-o's who started that crap are pretty much the ones responsible for the emo crap we have today. I blame, in part, Tim Armstrong and Green Day for that. When punk stopped being a mind set and became a movement/lifestyle, it stopped being punk. It became what the OG punks were derisive of in the first place.
/rant
Well, there are punks and there are posers.
Punk isn't about a "code". The lame-o's who started that crap are pretty much the ones responsible for the emo crap we have today...[cut]... When punk stopped being a mind set and became a movement/lifestyle, it stopped being punk. It became what the OG punks were derisive of in the first place.
<Applause!>
Carry on.
-- C.
Punk isn't about a "code". The lame-o's who started that crap are pretty much the ones responsible for the emo crap we have today. /rant
I dunno houstonderek. I knew a bunch of Punks, and also knew a bunch of posers or people who dressed like punks but embraced very loosely, if at all, their philosophy.
Punk is a movement or at at least it was in the 70s trough the 90s, and what I know of it has nothing to do with the emo trend (I also had a few gothic friends, which were different from the Punks in many regards. I also knew a few skinheads which have a few common characteristics with Punks but were actually quite opposed both in 'allegiance' and philosophy). Punk is all about the systematic rejection of authority and social concepts, but it is a movement and a philosophy. A Punk is someone who adhere to that philosophy/code. There cannot be a movement without some sort of structure, guidelines and typical behaviour that its followers adopt.
@Skerek: I completely agree with you, but I brought that question because the OP states that LAW = code.
|
It's Billy Jo Armstrong. Not sure where "Tim" came from, but it's all good.
And,... not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment but Green Day never really liked Dookie or American Idiot being called "Punk" -- it was more like The Industry put that label on them because they started as punk. But none of their hits, first to last, are really punk.
The Ramones are punk.
The Clash are punk.
(And The Clash were mainstream.)
|
|
See, you keep using that word "movement". No one wanted to start a movement, that was the posers having to add structure, hierarchies, and pecking orders to something. The only thing inherently punk is a D.I.Y. attitude. The politics and crap all came later, really, and were the beginning of the end.
The fact a "movement" evolved is antithetical to the entire point in the first place. I've had the opportunity to listen to Ian b$+#+ about the "straight edge" "movement" first hand at a party, and it truly disturbed him that jackasses took what he considered a personal philosophy and made it into something codified. It basically rejected the entire premise he was trying to present.
The second people started codifying the "movement" it stopped being anything I consider "punk". It just became a dick measuring contest like any other scene.
Sorry.
|
|
It's Billy Jo Armstrong. Not sure where "Tim" came from, but it's all good.
And,... not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment but Green Day never really liked Dookie or American Idiot being called "Punk" -- it was more like The Industry put that label on them because they started as punk. But none of their hits, first to last, are really punk.
The Ramones are punk.
The Clash are punk.
(And The Clash were mainstream.)
Tim Armstrong. Operation Ivy/Rancid, basically Billy Jo's "mentor" in the Bay Area scene, if you will.
The Clash were pop with punk fashion sense. Still good music, though.
See, you keep using that word "movement". No one wanted to start a movement, that was the posers having to add structure, hierarchies, and pecking orders to something.
(...)
Sorry.
It doesn't matter. Punk is a philosophy. Several people following that philosophy constitute a movement, even if this 'movement' is only acknowledged by those who witness it from the outside (or pose as being part of it).
the club of those-who-have-no-club is still a club, even if its members deny it.
I blame, in part, Tim Armstrong and Green Day for that.
Wait, we're not talking trash about Operation Ivy, are we?
|
|
*Looks up "Tim Armstrong" -- has to reread Derek's post.
Ah.
Never heard of Tim Armstrong. I guess I can only speak at all about Green Day.
.... Hmmm, I like your description of The Clash. Though you need to call it "great" music, not merely "good."
Alignment is fun to talk about because it's dynamic. At least, it was -- once you figure it out, once you solve it, it's no longer dynamic. I solved it. Bleh.
|
|
I blame, in part, Tim Armstrong and Green Day for that.Wait, we're not talking trash about Operation Ivy, are we?
Op Ivy was ok, Rancid sucks ass. But Op Ivy was one of the early "whiny" punk bands. I hate the fake Brit accent, strident vocal style. Yeah, I know Fat Mike is like that as well (minus the accent), and it's one thing that keeps NOFX on a "good, not great" level for me...
And I really have issues with most third and fourth wave ska just on general principles...
Oh, the problems with punk started long before Green Day and Operation Ivy. I'd guess they started somewhere around, oh, 1976? 1977?
Most of my favorite music came out of the British Isles between 1976 and 1984, but, let's face it: once it became necessary to explain why such awesome bands as Television and the Patti Smith Group were, in fact, punk bands, the codification of punk had begun.
As for the Armstrongs: nostalgia will prevent me from having any reaction to the early Lookout! bands other than intense pleasure. Didn't really follow Rancid, gave up on Green Day after Nimrod, but still, one never stops enjoying the albums that were playing when you first got high, got laid, and got chased by the cops!
EDIT: Also, the Grateful Dead rule!
|
|
Following a code of conduct doesn't necessarily make one lawful, take drow society for example, CE, everyone follows the un-written 'rules', but they are still chaotic because the 'rules' are chaotic and promote anarchy.What if this becomes someone's code of conduct, like in the punk movement? Would it be lawful of chaotic?Chaos is about thinking rules are for the weak willed and simple minded who need to be told what to do.
Agreed.
The problem with having an absolute rule of what is lawful and what isn't, is that per the various settings some places/people consider things like slavery legal and other don't. If lawful is always lawful, you have to adjust what you are and aren't ok with based on your geography. So obviously considerations of law/chaos need to be a personal issue. Good and evil stay fixed and immutable, but law and chaos can change person to person.
|
|
I think that the law and chaos axis should very much be read with an eye on Moorcock's Eternal Champion series. I think that a major problem with the law/chaos axis is its reliance on a word that also is used to denote following the rules of a given society. That wasn't the point in the original stories, and the water becomes muddy if you try to view it through that lens.
I think that the law and chaos axis should very much be read with an eye on Moorcock's Eternal Champion series. I think that a major problem with the law/chaos axis is its reliance on a word that also is used to denote following the rules of a given society. That wasn't the point in the original stories, and the water becomes muddy if you try to view it through that lens.
That's what i am saying for quite some time, and it really irritates me that they chose the word "law" instead of the word "order" it becomes much more easier.
Ordered good