Here is a question that provokes a bevy of different answers. What constitutes being:
LG : Abiding by the Laws of your country no matter what? (Superman)
CG : To hell with Law, do what feels right? (Conan)
NG : Follow the Law, as long as it doesn't get in the way of doing what is right? (true good) (The Shoveler)
LN : Abiding by the Law of your country no matter what? (Communists)
CN : Cater to your whims? (Tribal)
N : Keep everyone happy? (true Neutral) (Sweden)
LE : Abide by the Laws of your country no matter what? (The Alliances 'Man' in Serenity)
CE : To hell with everyone and do whatever strikes your fancy? (Jabba the Hutt)
NE : Follow the Laws of your country unless they get in the way of your enjoyment of others suffering? (true evil) (Hillary Clinton)
These are rough definitions my groups have come up with over the years. We normally have in depth discussions on who embodies what alignment, as well. Our biggest separation of opinion is what category does Batman fit into.
Agreements, disagreements? How do you tell them apart?
Here is a question that provokes a bevy of different answers. What constitutes being:
LG : Abiding by the Laws of your country no matter what? (Superman)
CG : To hell with Law, do what feels right? (Conan)
NG : Follow the Law, as long as it doesn't get in the way of doing what is right? (true good) (The Shoveler)
LN : Abiding by the Law of your country no matter what? (Communists)
CN : Cater to your whims? (Tribal)
N : Keep everyone happy? (true Neutral) (Sweden)
LE : Abide by the Laws of your country no matter what? (The Alliances 'Man' in Serenity)
CE : To hell with everyone and do whatever strikes your fancy? (Jabba the Hutt)
NE : Follow the Laws of your country unless they get in the way of your enjoyment of others suffering? (true evil) (Hillary Clinton)These are rough definitions my groups have come up with over the years. We normally have in depth discussions on who embodies what alignment, as well. Our biggest separation of opinion is what category does Batman fit into.
Agreements, disagreements? How do you tell them apart?
Being LG requires you to uphold the Law for all citizens, and to fight for them at any cost. Paladins (and some Clerics) are the pinnacle of this alignment, as many are healers and protectors for the poor and the weak, and abide by a code of honor/duty, AKA a Dogma.
Being CG is kind of similar to that of LG, except they aren't too concerned about the Laws/Codes of cities and such, and do whatever it takes to combat the likes of Evil.
Being NG is giving the benefit of the doubt even to those who are (or aren't truly) Evil. There isn't much requirement other than that the character will do whatever it takes to set things right without upsetting the balance between a character's behavior and ideals.
Being LN only requires you to uphold the Law, and that the Law is the only thing you live and abide by. Anything else is irrelevant and/or unimportant to you, and that is that.
Being CN is alike with that of True Neutral, except by the factor that the character doesn't really care about the balance of the world in terms of Good and Evil, and does whatever the hell it feels like, and anything getting in its way can go to Hell itself.
Being TN is alike with that of Chaotic Neutral, except by the factor that the character tries their best to preserve the balance of Good and Evil in the world, and goes with the flow of whatever happens, assuming it keeps arbitration as much as possible. (I'd like to think I am this, but I am probably more along the lines of Chaotic Neutral.)
Being LE does require you to uphold the law, but you try your best to weasel your way around the law through loopholes to acquire your true ambitions. However, this doesn't subtract from the factor you still have some dignity and honor amongst you; how much that is, though, can easily be questionable.
Being CE is perhaps the most selfish alignment there is, because you can do whatever you want, not give a **** about what others do or say against you, and you can be as twisted and demented and Evil as you want.
Being NE is one of the more enigmatic alignments, in that it is questionable as to why a character who is so evil can still have the concept of arbitration applied to them. Whether this is true or not, cannot be explained other than by the person itself in regards to reasoning. My screenname is a character I made up with something like this, in that he is mysterious and has evil traits to put to his name, but has no inherent evil about him.
As to your more comical question; Batman is probably under the lines of Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, in that he fights for justice and to put criminals in their place, but does so in an otherwise unorthodox and almost unpredictable manner (hence the Chaotic influence). We could argue him to be True Neutral as he tries to keep the peace of Gotham, but one thing is for sure; he's not leaving out of the core Neutral line/circle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the caveat that this is nothing to do with reality and is just about alignment in a D&D/Pathfinder world:
I like to treat Good/Evil as an indicator of one's attitude to others (good people value others' lives, evil people wish others harm, neutral people are indifferent to the concerns of others*) with the Law/Chaos spectrum indicating what methods are acceptable for achieving those aims (freedom vs cooperation as the most effective tool for achieving one's moral goals).
* Evil and neutral people may value specific individuals and good people may wish harm on specific 'others' but as a general rule I think Good equates to giving other sentient beings intrinsic rights (sometimes in opposition to ones own wellbeing) whilst evil equates to an enjoyment for inflicting harm.
Depends on the persons perspective of reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good/Evil alignment is simples.
For a start, it it universal, and has nothing to do with perception. Hitler was still evil, no matter if he thought he was doing it for the best reasons.
Good: 'I put the well-being of others before my own'.
Neutral: 'I treat others as they treat me'.
Evil: 'I don't mind harming others to get what I want.'
Good people aren't always heroes, just nice guys.
Evil people aren't always rapists or murderers, just jerks.
Not everyone is a paragon of their alignment.
I don't think Lawful means 'obeying the law', because you could have a LN or LE thieves guild which adheres to its own rules.
I've always felt Lawful means organised, traditional, group-orientated.
And Chaotic means maverick, individualist, mercurial.
And Conan is pretty much Neutral/unaligned; he's no hero. He's out for himself, but he doesn't harm anyone who hasn't harmed him.
Batman is LG, even if he works outside the law (and he actually works WITH the police). He has his own codes about guns and killing, for instance, and no problem working with groups like the JLA or Outsiders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the persons perspective of reality.
Absolutely not, not ever.
Alignment is universal.
An awful lot of evil people (especially LE) think what they are doing is right and for the best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful good are under no obligation to follow the laws of their opposites or lawful evil laws, governments, authorities, faiths. Combatting them is fine, getting overzealous and really into the hero trying to save the day and end evil via what the hero can effect is all fine but pulling out all the stops is more CG.
Alignments are linked to factions, but not absolutely. The lawful good faith will have a few unusual types amongst its members, some CN or CG for instance.
Depends on the persons perspective of reality.Absolutely not, not ever.
Alignment is universal.
An awful lot of evil people (especially LE) think what they are doing is right and for the best.
Glad to see that. Some can try all sorts of excuses, mini games of pretend (press x to lower guilt!) and justifications for themselves, but the game is pretty clear and alignment exists--unless a dm takes it out, but that has not gone well in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think those definitions put way too much emphasis on the old fallacy of thinking that Lawful alignment is all about following government law.
Let's have a look at what the rulebook actually has to say on the matter:
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties ... Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
Good old civilisation and barbarians.
:D
In my current world, the monsters represent the primal or the barbaric, but some are collaborating, going the enlightened city state model, some of the humans are pushing the civ and empire thing, others feudal, others free state. The neutral druids represent the old ways, before barbarism and civilisation!
You won't find alliances of devils and demons in a campaign I design, devils require civilization and seek to expand it while demons can only work with the uncivilized and seek to destroy civilization.
True.
But the whole point of the Blood War was the nature of Evil. It has little to do with law or chaos. LG and CG outsiders work together. LN and CN outsiders mostly avoid each other. It was LE and CE outsiders that decided that the solution to their differences in philosophy was an endless, genocidal war. Which ironically cripples Evil; had they worked together, the rest of the planes may have been in danger.
I'd disagree about the civilisation thing though. Tribals and 'primitives' can have very complex, ordered societies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most two common 'alignment problems' I've seen are these:
- people who think LG is some kind of 'extra-special good'. Law and chaos are just a means of doing things. LG is not 'more good' than NG or CG (arguably, it might be less good than NG!) LG is probably harder to play, because you have to pretty much always take the moral high ground, and can't use the enemy's tactics against them. Which is why it's a balance to the paladin's powers, and why non-LG paladins almost always suck.
- people who think 'neutral' is 'evil-lite', and think it's fine to steal, injure or even kill others just because they're not as depraved as the ogres in Hook Mountain. If you do bad stuff to people who've done nothing to you, you're evil. A school bully who threatens other boys for their lunch money is CE. The 'popular' girl who uses her looks, wealth and status to hurt 'lesser' girls just because she can, is LE. You don't have to be Hannibal Lecter to qualify for 'evil'. You can just be a selfish jerk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mm, which is why when the monsters have banded together, developed tech, agriculture, cities and complex stratification, I put them more in the lawful camp.
Of course, the LG lizardmen do not get along with the already existing lawful (which stretches from good to evil) human empire. So it becomes meritocratic monster city states, using the more violent and simple monsters as mercs, against some of the humans which have the dominant religion on their side.
The druids sit back and laugh, trying to keep the old places and reclaim what they can. The evil druidic "wing" ruthlessly kills trespassers and over civs representing less major alignments carve out what they can and try to keep their way of life moving. The players started deep in CG territory, they have moved into the lawful monastery lands above the holy empire, and are now journeying to a hidden underground city dedicated to the cult of death (N).
Anyway, that is how I do it.
The most two common 'alignment problems' I've seen are these:
- people who think LG is some kind of 'extra-special good'. Law and chaos are just a means of doing things. LG is not 'more good' than NG or CG (arguably, it might be less good than NG!) LG is probably harder to play, because you have to pretty much always take the moral high ground, and can't use the enemy's tactics against them. Which is why it's a balance to the paladin's powers, and why non-LG paladins almost always suck.
- people who think 'neutral' is 'evil-lite', and think it's fine to steal, injure or even kill others just because they're not as depraved as the ogres in Hook Mountain. If you do bad stuff to people who've done nothing to you, you're evil. A school bully who threatens other boys for their lunch money is CE. The 'popular' girl who uses her looks, wealth and status to hurt 'lesser' girls just because she can, is LE. You don't have to be Hannibal Lecter to qualify for 'evil'. You can just be a selfish jerk.
NG is extra-special good.
With no "side" of law or chaos.
Mm, which is why when the monsters have banded together, developed tech, agriculture, cities and complex stratification, I put them more in the lawful camp.
Of course, the LG lizardmen do not get along with the already existing lawful (which stretches from good to evil) human empire. So it becomes meritocratic monster city states, using the more violent and simple monsters as mercs, against some of the humans which have the dominant religion on their side.
The druids sit back and laugh, trying to keep the old places and reclaim what they can. The evil druidic "wing" ruthlessly kills trespassers and over civs representing less major alignments carve out what they can and try to keep their way of life moving. The players started deep in CG territory, they have moved into the lawful monastery lands above the holy empire, and are now journeying to a hidden underground city dedicated to the cult of death (N).
Anyway, that is how I do it.
That all makes sense; a complex interplay of alignments.
I'd also agree NG is the 'most good', if anything is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment consists of two axes:
Moral axis: Good -- Neutral -- Evil
Ethical axis: Lawful -- Neutral -- Chaotic
So to understand alignment, you really need to understand the difference between morals and ethics.
Morals asks the question "Is it right or wrong?"
If you go to your local community college, you can take loads of philosophy courses that can introduce you to all kinds of right-wrong metrics.
A moral relativist will disagree with a moral absolutist if the act of torture is right or wrong. For example, a moral absolutist will say that torture is always wrong. The moral relativist will say torture is not always wrong, and depends on the circumstances and motivation.
(This is why you get threads like Is torturing intelligent undead an evil action?; it's 300 posts of moral absolutists vs. moral relativists, arguing about the nature of right/good and wrong/evil.)
Like it or not, D&D comes from a moral absolutist position. The Book of Vile Darkness starts with Chapter One: The Nature of Evil on Page 5, talking about objective evil. Pathfinder inherits that tradition of moral absolutism.
In Pathfinder then, torture is always wrong/Evil. It doesn't matter who does it to whom for whatever reason, it's always Evil, period. As are lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, etc. You can then collect all actions (devoid of any context) and put them on a list, call it the List of Evil Actions.
Those of Evil alignment are generally willing to perform some to all of the actions on the List of Evil Actions.
Those of Good alignment are generally not willing to perform most or all of the actions on the List of Evil Actions.
Those of Neutral alignment may be amoral (an animal, without moral reasoning) or willing to dip into the List of Evil Actions, but not quite to the degree that an Evil character will.
Ethics asks the question "Is it permissible according to a code of conduct?"
Ethics is a little bit more complex, because an answer depends on the code of conduct is many times it depends on what code of conduct is chosen as the ethical standard.
The common ethical standard most people know about is the law. Like U.S. Federal law, or Canadian law, or the laws of the State of California. All of these are different standards. Sometimes more than one standard applies at a time.
There are also professional codes. Such as:
ACM Code of Ethics
IEEE Code of Ethics
Legal Ethics
Medical Ethics
So the question of Lawful vs Chaotic comes down to:
- Does the action follow the applicable rules?
Lawful actions follow most or all of the applicable rules.
Chaotic actions follow little to none of the applicable rules.
Characters of a Lawful alignment try to perform only those actions which are Lawful.
Characters of a Neutral alignment may not have a code of conduct, or is willing to "bend" the rules from time to time.
Characters of a Chaotic alignment may scoff at code(s) of conduct they know apply to them, or believe that only their personal code of conduct applies to them, or believe that no code(s) of conduct apply to them at all.
Putting It Back Together
For every action, you can now determine where it lies in the alignment space. Understanding, of course, that alignment space is defined over a set of ethics.
To take a real world example, we'll examine the action of cheating on one's spouse.
To a moral absolutist, lying and breaking a vow are both wrong. Thus we know that cheating on one's spouse is Evil.
The ethical part is a little more complicated. Which set of ethical codes applies to the action?
If one is a Christian, then cheating on one's spouse is not permissible by Christian Ethics. Thus cheating on one's spouse would be Chaotic Evil.
If one believes that the wedding vow creates a code of conduct for the marriage, then cheating on one's spouse would be Chaotic Evil.
In some states in the United States, there are still adultery laws on the books. (In Michigan, it is punishable by up to a Life Sentence; no kidding!)
But it is questionable is those laws are actually enforceable. Thus in the absence of all other codes of conduct, one could conclude cheating on one's spouse is a Neutral Evil act.
So now we know what alignments would be comfortable with cheating on one's spouse; Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. Lawful Evil might also do it if it's not against the law. Lawful Neutral would be hesitant. Any Good alignment would find it reprehensible.
Some more examples:
A lawyer fully defending a rapist in court, knowing the rapist is guilty. (Lawful Evil)
Helping someone escape punishment for a crime they didn't commit. (Chaotic Good)
Donating money to a good cause. (Neutral Good)
Littering. (Chaotic Neutral)
And now you know how the other alignments will feel about these actions and why.
I believe keeping an open mind is the best path to wisdom. There are many great answers and opinions here! So by what I have read here I can actually see Batman fitting into the LG category (carefully disguised as Chaotic Neutral), and Ra's al Ghul as more of Lawful Neutral. This is going by the movie version who would remove a cities population for 'the greater good' if they were deemed corrupt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted a thread in the house rules section earlier to talk about a slightly different approach to Law vs. Chaos.
If you will indulge me, I'll re-post it here:
For me, Law vs. Chaos can be thought of as Predictability vs. Unpredictibility or as Consistency vs. Compromise. Let me explain with an example:
Take the following question: "Would you sacrifice one person in order to save ten?"
Now for this, the answer you (or your character) would give doesn't matter – that is for debates on good vs evil. For our purposes, let's just say a character says no.
What if we change the question to: "Would you sacrifice one person in order to save one hundred?"
or "Would you sacrifice ten people to save one thousand?" or "Would you sacrifice one thousand to save ten million?"
The questions above are all really examples of the same question: "Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?" I propose that a character's alignment on the Law/Chaos axis determines if and when their answer changes.
So take our hypothetical character who said no at the beginning. If they were Lawful, their answer of 'no' wouldn't change (or at the very least, be resistant to change). A Chaotic person though would let the circumstances dictate their response.
Of course, my hypothetical character above is someone who has taken Lawful to the absolute extreme; someone who never, ever compromises. The counterpart to that would be someone so Chaotic that they could never make a decision because they always compromised and I think both would be unplayable.
Taken at a reasonable level though, this system creates a neat dynamic in which the Good/Evil axis determines what your character's morals and beliefs are, and the Law/Chaos axis determines how you adhere to them.
NE : Follow the Laws of your country unless they get in the way of your enjoyment of others suffering? (true evil) (Michelle Bachman)Fixed it for you.
Ty
In my campaigns most mortals are Neutral. In rare cases this can mean they particularly value balance. Mostly, it means they are within the bounds of "normal" for their cultural context; neither viciously depraved enough to be evil nor selfless enough to be good. They may value freedom or order more than the other, but without sufficient fervor to rate an "official" non-neutral alignment.
Aligned creatures include exceptional individuals, clerics, paladins, outsiders, aberrants, most undead, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
