I am playing a game with new players that are confused by how Pathfinder defines alignment components, so I generalized them down to this:
Lawful characters tend to be logically driven, while chaotic characters tend to be emotionally driven.
Good characters tend to be selfless, while evil characters tend to be selfish.
Of course, neutral characters tend to balance between the two characteristics of their respective axis.
I was wondering how bad my summary is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good characters tend to be selfless, while evil characters tend to be selfish.
Yes.
Lawful characters tend to be logically driven, while chaotic characters tend to be emotionally driven.
No. There is at best a loose correlation between the Law/Chaos axis and logic/emotion. Paladins, for example, are required to be Lawful, but frequently are portrayed as more emotional than logical; there is even a LG empyreal lord associated with wrath and the Rage subdomain.
It is a bit harder to summarize Law vs Chaos because a lot of different concepts have been drawn into them.
I would suggest "Lawful characters like structured systems that support group cohesion while chaotic characters like loose systems that protect individual self-determination."
Good is about helping and protecting others from harm.
Evil is about causing harm to others for personal reasons.
Lawful is about obeying a set of rules, and about a controlled society.
Chaotic is about being free, being self driven, and about an individualistic society.
This site describes the alignment system pretty thoroughly but in simplistic terms, with all 9 axis of alignment. The Alignment System Simplified
Lawful is about order. It's seriously the worst worded bit in alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed about Lawful, the proper word would be Order.
Good old Shin Megami Tensei games showing that Lawful is not always Good.
NOOOOOOOO not another alignment thread.
Lawful characters tend to be logically driven, while chaotic characters tend to be emotionally driven.
I'm going to disagree with most people here and say this is basically fine. Lawful characters try to control their emotions. Chaotic characters follow their feelings. It's not consistent with every portrayal of Lawful characters ever, but no simple statement about the Law/Chaos axis is, so it's fine.
NOOOOOOOO not another alignment thread.
So I have a player playing a Paladin...
So I have a player playing a Paladin...NOOOOOOOO not another alignment thread.
Tell me more about him.
We could be friends.Good friends.
So I have a player playing a Paladin...NOOOOOOOO not another alignment thread.
Oh yes...That is a way to start a 450 reply thread that spins out of control
Lawful characters tend to be logically driven, while chaotic characters tend to be emotionally driven.
Not exactly. While those concepts are not very wrong they are not 100% guarantees.
Lawful characters believe that, IN GENERAL, an organized society with laws that govern how that society runs is better than randomness and anarchy. Laws are there to protect society from itself and from negative outliers and ultimately will define rights for the individual.
Chaotic characters believe that, IN GENERAL, the rights of the individual are ultimately more important than the rights of society as a whole and that people should not lose out to focusing on 'the bigger picture'. Laws are there to serve the individual and they should not get in the way of a persons freedom.
As a side note Lawful, neutral and chaotic characters could all have codes they live by and those codes would espouse their personal views on freedom and action, but having a code, in and of itself, would not make you lawful it just means you have beliefs that you think are important enough that you follow them most of the time.
I emphasize generally because no one is cut and dried and there is room for free will and judging things on a case by case basis in all circumstances no matter what you alignment is.
|
|
Lawful characters tend to be logically driven, while chaotic characters tend to be emotionally driven.I'm going to disagree with most people here and say this is basically fine. Lawful characters try to control their emotions. Chaotic characters follow their feelings. It's not consistent with every portrayal of Lawful characters ever, but no simple statement about the Law/Chaos axis is, so it's fine.
Just because no simple statement about Law/Chaos is a perfect summary doesn't mean that anything that is sort of related to Law/Chaos makes a good summary. The CRB description of Law and Chaos doesn't mention emotion at all - Chaotic characters are described as following their "consciences." The most emotional term in the CRB alignment description is "compassion," which is of course associated with Good.
If you do want a one-word summary, "Order" is much better.
Or even tradition vs adaptability, or authority vs individuality, both of which are contrasts that are actually described as being part of the Law-Chaos axis in the CRB.
My usual division is group-oriented vs. individual-oriented. Alternatively, individualist (in the sociological sense, not the political one) vs. collectivist (again, in the sociological sense, not the political sense).
I'm afraid that "logical" vs. "emotional" are completely irrelevant (in my view).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think that your definitions should work well for your game, OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I emphasize generally because no one is cut and dried and there is room for free will and judging things on a case by case basis in all circumstances no matter what you alignment is.
I disagree with this as a misrepresentation of the Lawful point of view. Law is about following the rules, and not making exceptions on a case by case basis. Or, more accurately, the exceptions themselves are part of the rules.
To understand this, let's look at one of the most "lawful" formalism out there, the actual law.
If I break your store window, I have broken the law. (This is true in almost all jurisdictions, but I'll focus on US law, which of course is based on English Common law.) This is specifically codified in written law. For example, in Connecticut, this would be "Criminal mischief" and punished under C.G.S. 53a-116 or something similar, which specifies both the elements of the crime and the penalty to expect if you commit it.
That said, if you are arrested, there are a number of due process steps involved before you will be punished that are supposed to make sure that in this particular case, all of the necessary elements were present. It's not as arbitrary as "you did the crime, now do the time," because someone needs to actually make the decision about whether or not you did the crime or not.
Well, yes, but.... what if you're a special snowflake, and the law shouldn't apply to you for some reason? That, too, is written into the law. There are a number of affirmative defenses that entitle you, as a matter of law, to avoid conviction and punishment. For example, there is the "defense of necessity," which allows a person to commit a crime "when an emergency situation, not of the person's own creation compels the person to act in a criminal manner to avoid greater harm from occurring." (For example, there was a fire in your store, so I broke the window in order to get there and put it out.) Another defense is "duress," and so forth. The main point, though, is that these are not exceptions to the rules -- these are, in fact, part of the rules (which is why lawyers drive Jaguars). Society as a whole has already decided what the exceptions are, not an individual special snowflake. The rules themselves are built to be fault-tolerant and self-correcting, which means that no exceptions should be needed.
The idea that "lawful means lawful until something happens that I don't like, at which point I can break the rules" is a chaotic [or at best neutral] misrepresentation of law.
Law - Order
Chaos - Freedom
Good - Helping the innocent
Evil - hurting the innocent
Key word innocent. Also, good doesn't necessarily mean helping people. You have to help ALL of the innocent. Just your own people falls under neutral.
Neutral is normally an independent objective. Money, fame, religion, loved ones, etc. They can be anything. Those are primary motivations however. You can want game, but must sacrifice it if it conflicts with helping others if you want to be good.
Also, actions generally aren't aligned. The motivations are. Killing someone to protect the innocent is good. Killing because it's fun is evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law - Order
Chaos - Freedom
Good - Helping the innocent
Evil - hurting the innocent
Key word innocent. Also, good doesn't necessarily mean helping people. You have to help ALL of the innocent. Just your own people falls under neutral.
Neutral is normally an independent objective. Money, fame, religion, loved ones, etc. They can be anything. Those are primary motivations however. You can want game, but must sacrifice it if it conflicts with helping others if you want to be good.
Also, wind generally aren't aligned. The motivations are. Killing someone to protect the innocent is good. Killing because it's fun is evil.
Define innocent. At what point does the service of the greater good no longer justify acts like killing? How much does intent matter? Etc.