Whenever I see an argument about law vs chaos, I present the disciplined, ordered anarchist.
A person that is dedicated to perfection of self through calm contemplation and reason, and fights for the idea of a lawless society where each person's individual pursuit of self-empowerment increases the greatness of the whole.
Lawful or chaotic?
Or the rigidly traditionalist freedom fighter who hates structured governments?
There are a lot of ideas that are strongly purposeful in their pursuit of something that is neither law nor chaos but cannot be called neutral either.
This is because the definitions of law and chaos as written are not mutually exclusive.
I do agree however that this conversation is (as all other alignment treads invariably become) about how others interpret alignment, which for me is proof enough that alignments as written are ill-defined. I honestly cannot think of any element of D&D that has created such levels of argument since the dawn of 1st edition (or whenever alignment appeared).
Quoted for truth.
On a different tack: Yesterday I answered a Jung Typology survey from the point-of-view of a couple of my N/PCs. I was impressed by the accuracy of the descriptions and how they matched the way I'd been roleplaying these characters. It got me to wondering if the 16 personality types could naturally be slotted into the Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic dispositions. That might at least provide a more objective (or at least standardized) way of evaluating that alignment axis.
Alis Kirmoon: Chaotic Good. ENFP, Champion
Sasha Nevah: Chaotic Neutral. ESTP, Promotor
On a different tack: Yesterday I answered a Jung Typology survey from the point-of-view of a couple of my N/PCs. I was impressed by the accuracy of the descriptions and how they matched the way I'd been roleplaying these characters. It got me to wondering if the 16 personality types could naturally be slotted into the Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic dispositions. That might at least provide a more objective (or at least standardized) way of evaluating that alignment axis.
woooooah, lots to dig in this indeed. Thanks for the link Laith!
I can't shake the feeling that I've seen this test before, like 20 years ago, in high school or something. It's not the orientation test we had back then, but I know I've seen this before...
Glad it's of interest. :) I believe the version used in schools and corporations is called the Myers-Briggs test. It's often used to help individuals identify career paths for which they are well-suited.
Glad it's of interest. :) I believe the version used in schools and corporations is called the Myers-Briggs test. It's often used to help individuals identify career paths for which they are well-suited.
It wasn't that one, unless the name-tags are significantly different in french. IIRC, it had 5 "traits" and you had to find a dominant and secondary trait.
...kind of like a Magic:the Gathering deck now that I think of it!
"hey guys, guess what! The teacher told me I'm a Black-Green! So I decided to go into the 'regenerate' business, and move south to the bayous."
However, my wife is. :)*except for TOZ, he says he never looked back but he's always poking his roguish head in threads like this one :)Correction, 'paladinish'. I'm no rogue. ;)
So what happened to the "associate" clause of the paladin then? I hope she's the 'compatible' kind of rogue ;)
Two points of interest, for me at least:
1) Alignments are *essentially* non-mechanical. Really, they're for flavor, aren't they? Choosing your alignment/sympathies helps to really define a character concept, and perhaps to indicate for other players how that character may interact with others. It's a philosophical thing, no?
2) Good and Evil aren't actually valid qualifications. There are all the old arguments as to the relative / objective / arbitrary nature of Good and Evil, which people obviously do not agree upon, but perhaps more powerful is the notion that an individual is neither Good nor Evil in any ultimate or absolute way. There are actions, motivations, ideals, etc etc...isn't that *the whole bloody point* of characterization and storytelling?
Do you guys wince like I do, when you're reading a book, and the opening description of some character is along the lines of 'He was a funny guy.'? If I think he's a funny guy, damn it, I'll laugh. You can tell me that he makes other people laugh, fine. Tell me he thinks he's really funny, fine. But it's up to me, the reader, to determine how bloody comical your character is.
*Likewise* (in case you folks thought that was just a curious tangent), don't tell me what is good and evil. Fantasy lit is particularly rife with this, and it bleeds into our game systems. Don't just give me some douchy Dark Lord and tell me that our heroes are going to go get him - give me a plot, and I'll make my own decisions, thank you.
Is there a certain quality in literature which demands the conveyance of philosophical opinions? Indubitably so, yes indeed, and without a doubt. *Must* they be stated in such a simple, assumed and unsupported manner? No, sir! I like my fantasy on the subtler side, if you please.
So - all that said - here's a link to my own completely biased and arguable alignment modifications! http://www.dndonlinegames.com/showthread.php?p=4624751 That was written some while ago, and I'm sure is subject to all sorts of criticism, so...enjoy! :P
Two points of interest, for me at least:
1) Alignments are *essentially* non-mechanical. Really, they're for flavor, aren't they? Choosing your alignment/sympathies helps to really define a character concept, and perhaps to indicate for other players how that character may interact with others. It's a philosophical thing, no?
Well, the problem is that alignment isn't non-mechanical. When a character cast detect evil, Evil will be detected if evil there is. When a character enters the Nine Hells, he/she will be affect to different degree according to his/her alignment. Mechanical effects based on alignments are sprinkled throughout the system, from character class prerequisites to weapon-related effects.
Alignment tries to be *both* a moral/ethical compass *and* a four-pointed cardinal force/energy. Whether it should be like that is another story, but I feel that saying that alignment is essentially non-mechanical is voluntarily ignoring part of the game.
Would "voluntarily ignoring part of the game" be saner for us all; probably :)
Eh, sprinkled is an apt description, and I think most of those things can be house-ruled without much issue amongst friendly gamers. I'm already skeptical on the applications of those sprinkles - Detect Evil not the least of them - though I still have yet to encounter them frequently enough to ascertain their uses. Beyond, you know, pinging for zombies. (In which event, I was actually more fond of the Nemesis feat for 3.5 Rangers.)
Eh, sprinkled is an apt description, and I think most of those things can be house-ruled without much issue amongst friendly gamers.
heh, I give you that much. Many have simply done away with alignment (or kept it for inherently evil/good/lawful/chaotic beings like outsiders only).
But when a rule or sub-system needs to be houseruled or ignored for the game to run smooth, that's a sign for me that some improvement can be done. I'm a tinkerer at heart; I'm drawn to those 'bones'.
I still think that the alignment system can work both as a Cartesian force and personality compass. As a mater of fact, I love the idea that good can counteract evil, literally. There's a certain Harry Potter-ish poetry in that evil cannot bare the presence of love (good), and that reason can dispel the wild a la flight of dragons. Believes made into force; this is a central theme in early christian vs faeries tales and in the Planescape setting which I loved (and still love) dearly.
I truly believe that alignment can make the game better, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
'findel