Any DM worth their weight in books has struggled with the alignment system since they started DMing. On the one hand, it works with the rules really well. On the other hand, it is a very objective view of morality and does not lend itself well to "grim dark" settings.
The problem occurs less on the Law-Chaos axis, as both ends of the axis can be seen as equally beneficial. Law is order, safety, protection but also tyranny, oppression ect. Chaos is freedom, yet also anarchy (in the bad sense, not the political ideal).
Good and Evil have much less of an "equality". Good is good, evil is evil. This bugs me.
I want to "rethink" the good vs evil axis to use more "neutral" language.
Now, a selfless vs selfish axis works, but evil isn't always necessarily selfish. Many dictators were very selfless people (many more are greedy b#$&*+&~s of course) who did very terrible things, but did those things for others (at least this is how they saw it).
Reason vs Instinct can also work, but again, many "evil" people have been hyper reasoned and logical people.
So what are some words we could replace good and evil with that don't carry the same bias?
I think you are right with the selfless/selfish perspective.
Despotes that did terrible things with a higher cause in mind could by this simply be neutral (neither really good nor really evil).
At least that's what we do.
Another thing that can help is to "mentally" seperate both axises.
Don't think "Lawful Good", think "Lawful and Good".
Not "Chaotic Evil" but "Chaotic and Evil".
This helps in seeing the 4 "corner alignments" less radical.
Only because I believe in helping others and follow a strict code of self-discipline doesn't make me a crusader.
If my code of behavior would tell me to fight oppression and evilness where ever it occurs, THEN I would be a crusader, but "Lawful" simply means "code of behavior" not "Oath of Rightiousness".
I found this nice website http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html which did a really good job of renaming the alignments as follows:
Righteous (Lawful Good) - Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence
Humane (Neutral Good) - Benevolence and Universalism
Transcendent (Chaotic Good) - Universalism and Self-Direction
Autonomous (Chaotic Neutral) - Self-Direction and Stimulation
Sybaritic (Chaotic Evil) - Hedonism
Ambitious (Neutral Evil) - Achievement and Power
Ascendent (Lawful Evil) - Power and Security
Orthodox (Lawful Neutral) - Security and Conformity/Tradition
Pragmatic (True Neutral) - (any values)
It basically combined the alignment system with Shalom Schwartz' ideas about universals in value systems and created this graphic.
You might also take a glance at this dndog thread. The OP there makes an attempt at bypassing Good/Evil altogether, allowing for nine usable alignments, each of which could be played as good or evil. *shrug* Kind of an interesting idea, but it'll never catch on.
He appears to have replaced good/evil axis with collectivism/individualism instead.
Kind of like the political compass.
Law is order, safety, protection but also tyranny, oppression ect. Chaos is freedom, yet also anarchy (in the bad sense, not the political ideal).
Yeah, most actual anarchists see the current system as the wrong sort of order, not just too much. They actually run the gamut from the "every man for himself" (masculine pronoun intended) stereotype to advocating things that sound like bureaucratic nightmares.
Good and Evil have much less of an "equality". Good is good, evil is evil. This bugs me.
I've been thinking about this recently myself. From my own virtue-ethics perspective, good and evil aren't psychologically equivalent loyalties. I can do something just because it's the right thing, but not just because it's the wrong thing -- I need some extra motivation to do evil, such as personal gain or pleasure.
Related to this is a problem I have with dedicated true neutrals. It's one thing to say we need to occasionally do evil things, or even have some evil in general, for the sake of the greater good. But isn't that still a commitment to good in the end?
Another hitch is that humans tend divide the world into an in-group we need to give our care to and an out-group who either doesn't matter or deserves to be harmed. I might be an upstanding citizen and paragon of compassion to my own people but think it's perfectly fine to kill someone of a hated nation or race. *cough*kobolds*cough*
I'm afraid I don't have any genius answers to all this, but hopefully I've helped sharpen up the problem a bit.
EDIT: One extra hitch occurred to me. We tend to assume anyone who commits heinously evil crimes must be mentally disturbed in some way. I think we take this too far in many cases, but I'd agree that heinous evil probably require a moderately messed-up psyche in order for the proper motivations to be there, and that trauma and habitual vice can help produce such a mental state.
I've never held with the points-of-balance sort of system that we learn, it would seem, primarily from videogames. There was a thread about Neutrality here recently which covered some of this. It never occurred to me before that, that some folks actually believed that Neutral was an attempt to 'balance Good and Evil.' This, to my mind, is fairly insane. Most Neutrals, I figure, are just avoiding the whole Goog-Evil issue altogether...keep your head down, sort of thing. Some, like myself, are in such disagreement with the world-at-large about what constitutes these ethics that we end up helping neither side. Or sometimes it's just a live-and-let-live mentality. I don't think that anyone in their right mind ever says, "Oh, there's too much good, gotta balance that with some evil." Largely, this is because everyone thinks that they're good. Rather like that old statistic - 90% of drivers think that they're better than average.
My own opinion is that more Evil comes out of simple blind stupidity than out of any design. Also, more Evil is done by groups, clubs, crowds, mobs, gatherings, ad nauseum, than by any individual. As to your 'Evil-for-personal-gain' theory, I have a strong suspicion that more and greater Evil has been done out of a desire for the 'Greater Good,' than by anyone who thought they could make a buck from it. By and large, Evil isn't all that profitable. (For anyone readying their political/corporate attacks, please spare me, that's a different debate altogether.) It's just too much damn work.
I've never held with the points-of-balance sort of system that we learn, it would seem, primarily from videogames.
Personally, I got it from Villians by Necessity. Granted that it's a comedy, the idea there is that good and evil were cosmic forces and if not held in balance the world would end. In fact
Mind you, it's not the most realistic of scenarios, since now we're pitting "neutrals" devoted to the actual good vs. blind fanatics, but I could see setting it up that way for a roleplaying game.
Largely, this is because everyone thinks that they're good. Rather like that old statistic - 90% of drivers think that they're better than average.
Well, but there's also the possibility of "I know this is wrong but it's too late to back out know." Or like the Operative in Serenity: "I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."
Then there are some people who just have no conscience. Sociopaths and those who have suppressed their conscience through years of practice and habitual vice.
Also, more Evil is done by groups, clubs, crowds, mobs, gatherings, ad nauseum, than by any individual. As to your 'Evil-for-personal-gain' theory, I have a strong suspicion that more and greater Evil has been done out of a desire for the 'Greater Good,' than by anyone who thought they could make a buck from it.
Ah, yes, but there's the rub: we have to distinguish between evil acts and evil characters. Someone can do something evil because they think it's the right thing, but that's a mistake, not an expression of an evil character.
An evil character would presumably either be calloused or heavily compartmentalized and protected with ridiculous rationalizations.
(For anyone readying their political/corporate attacks, please spare me, that's a different debate altogether.)
Many people hold that different ethics apply in business or to those in political power. Having one of those positions is a great way to rationalize whatever one wants to do.
People can also do Evil because they want a higher position in the afterlife. In the PF cosmology, particularly (E)vil creatures become powerful outsiders when they die. As opposed to becoming a larva, which would suck. In this case, if you don't want to be a paragon of good, you should choose to be a paragon of something because being a petitioner kinda sucks.
As far as I understand PF cosmology, becoming a petitioner wipes most of your memories and personality. I think that if you were to become a true outsider right off the bat, you may retain your personality. So that is an incentive to not do things by halves.
Good and Evil are fine as is... That axis isn't really an issue.
Law and Chaos seems to be where most of the arguements tend to fall... Lawful indicates following laws... all laws... ANY laws... regardless of morality...
Which of course makes all characters of this alignment TOTALLY unfit as adventures.. who by nature 'take the law into their own hands' rather than 'summon the guards to deal with the threat'...
Chaos = NO laws EVER!!!! /Runs streaking through the city punching old women...
THAT Axis seems to be the more annoying... Lawful isn't very well defined.. and most of the threads on it, I tend to disagree with too.
(i.e. Code of Conduct arguments...)
Frankly EVERY character... EVER has a 'code of conduct.' Even the Joker has a strict rule about NEVER taking off Batman's mask. He doesn't WANT 'BATMAN" to become 'normal guy'... takes away his FUN.
This does NOT make Joker 'Lawful'...
I've heard some dm's say they won't allow 'CG' in a game... since the players are psychotic...
CG is my STANDARD alignment... I'm fine with laws... but they don't necessarily apply to ME... If there's a curfew in town, or they want me to check all my weapons at the door... To heck with THAT! I'll keep a dagger in my boot and go for a midnight stroll!
I do NOT pillage for fun, and kill every guard that insults me...
Lawful indicates following laws... all laws... ANY laws... regardless of morality...
Which of course makes all characters of this alignment TOTALLY unfit as adventures.. who by nature 'take the law into their own hands' rather than 'summon the guards to deal with the threat'...
*snip*
THAT Axis seems to be the more annoying... Lawful isn't very well defined.. and most of the threads on it, I tend to disagree with too.
I've seen this argument, but never a shred of anything that at all supports it. Source, sir?
Frankly EVERY character... EVER has a 'code of conduct.' Even the Joker has a strict rule about NEVER taking off Batman's mask. He doesn't WANT 'BATMAN" to become 'normal guy'... takes away his FUN.
This does NOT make Joker 'Lawful'...
That's called a quirk, or at least that's how my groups refer to it. Having one or two quirks doesn't change your alignment. (Ex: An evil, ruthless, despicable bandit might have a quirk where he never, ever, ever harms children. Doesn't make him less evil, doesn't make him lawful on its own.)
The usual problem with thinking about alignment is narrow definitions.
Each of the 9 categories contain madmen and psychologists. They also contain persons who are pushy and self controlled. Compare a crusading Paladin and a benevolent monk. The paladin will keep trying to convert others while the monk will try to help everyone they can, while asking nothing.
Alignment charts basically divide up an infinity, like a map of the alignment planes. Each part of it is still infinite. You can call law and caos, republican and democrat if you like.
Many fictional villains go on about how hypocritical laws or religion are. A caotic evil high priest may blame all their life's misfortune on lawful good people and dieties.
The joker in the movies hates the mobs because they are sort of lawful.
THANK YOU.