Is there any value in the Law vs Chaos axis?

[Earthorn]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Athaleon wrote:

On the other hand, Christopher Hitchens argued that totalitarianism, which is often described as systematic, is actually bound up with caprice. The rules change constantly so that people can never be sure whether they're following the latest rule or not, and the tyrant's changeable whim at any given moment is the highest law.

Totalitarianism is really its own thing. It tends to look pretty anti-individualist in most cases, but I wouldn't really call it collectivist in most instances either (though fascism certainly claims to be collectivist, it's not really an accurate characterization).

I'd say it's an Evil political system pretty much universally, but whether LE or CE or somewhere in between varies a lot depending on the leader and principles it's operating under. To what degree are the people in charge true believers and to what degree do they follow their own rules?

If it's really just entirely governed by one person's whims, then it's the ultimate expression of personal autonomy and individualism for that one person and probably CE, but that's not how all totalitarian regimes work in practice (and indeed often not even close).

I would definitely slot totalitarianism into NE. It's selfish philosophy that only cares about an individual and those in his favor (or a party elite, or a few families, etc). The neutral part comes in because there will be laws and norms dictating the restrictions placed on those who are not part of the elite. Naturally, these laws and norms somehow never end up restricting those at the top, even when by the letter they should.

[Melkiador]

If chaotic doesn't have to mean freedom for everyone, then maybe law doesn't have to mean law for everyone? But again, that's just cheapening the whole Law/Chaos axis.

[Neurophage]

Melkiador wrote:

If chaotic doesn't have to mean freedom for everyone, then maybe law doesn't have to mean law for everyone? But again, that's just cheapening the whole Law/Chaos axis.

What you call cheapening, I call adding nuance.

[The Raven Black]

Neurophage wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

If chaotic doesn't have to mean freedom for everyone, then maybe law doesn't have to mean law for everyone? But again, that's just cheapening the whole Law/Chaos axis.

What you call cheapening, I call adding nuance.

Also it allows for LG Paladins to work alongside CG fellows without trying to order them around

[Melkiador]

The Raven Black wrote:

Neurophage wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

If chaotic doesn't have to mean freedom for everyone, then maybe law doesn't have to mean law for everyone? But again, that's just cheapening the whole Law/Chaos axis.

What you call cheapening, I call adding nuance.

Also it allows for LG Paladins to work alongside CG fellows without trying to order them around

Though it was more to point out that you could have a Lawful person who believes that everyone else should have to follow laws, but that they themselves are above that.

[Deadmanwalking]

Melkiador wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Neurophage wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

If chaotic doesn't have to mean freedom for everyone, then maybe law doesn't have to mean law for everyone? But again, that's just cheapening the whole Law/Chaos axis.

What you call cheapening, I call adding nuance.

Also it allows for LG Paladins to work alongside CG fellows without trying to order them around

Though it was more to point out that you could have a Lawful person who believes that everyone else should have to follow laws, but that they themselves are above that.

Your own Alignment pretty much has to fit your self image/desires and views about yourself. If you don't have rules you stick to, you aren't Lawful. If you don't want independence, you aren't Chaotic.

Lawful absolutely can be found in those who wouldn't impose the rules they live by on others. Indeed, most Paladins definitionally fall under that category. And some selfish Chaotic people certainly only value their own freedom and not that of others. But you need to believe that Law or Chaos is right for you in order to fall under that Alignment.

So a person such as you describe would be NE or CE, not LE.

[Melkiador]

If a person makes tons of laws and enforces them, but doesn't also apply the laws to himself. How is that not still a lawful act? Each enforcement of law should count as a lawful act. The person has literally increased the lawfulness of the universe. How is he not lawful?

[Planpanther]

Melkiador wrote:

If a person makes tons of laws and enforces them, but doesn't also apply the laws to himself. How is that not still a lawful act? Each enforcement of law should count as a lawful act. The person has literally increased the lawfulness of the universe. How is he not lawful?

Sounds neutral to me. "I have a vested interest in society following rules, that do not necessarily apply to me." Instances of both lawful and chaotic behavior.

[Crayon]

Melkiador wrote:

If a person makes tons of laws and enforces them, but doesn't also apply the laws to himself. How is that not still a lawful act? Each enforcement of law should count as a lawful act. The person has literally increased the lawfulness of the universe. How is he not lawful?

Because what you're descibing isn't enforcing law. It's imposing your whims on others - in short, Chaotic. Furthermore, characters' alignment is based upon their choices - if a character's personal choices aren't governed by some sort of deducible morality, that character isn't Lawful by definition .

A Lawful society would need certain exceptions within its legal system (military law, canon law, diplomatic immunity, etc), but because Lawful characters actually believe in Order, they would thus seek to avoid such situations where possible.

[Deadmanwalking]

Melkiador wrote:

If a person makes tons of laws and enforces them, but doesn't also apply the laws to himself. How is that not still a lawful act? Each enforcement of law should count as a lawful act. The person has literally increased the lawfulness of the universe. How is he not lawful?

Because Alignment isn't about the net result you give the universe. Killing an Evil tyrant may increase the Good in the universe, but if you did it for money and would've killed an innocent child just as easily, you're still an Evil assassin.

Also, Lawful and laws do not necessarily go together. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, for example, is an excellent and specific example of a legal document written with clearly Chaotic intent since it's all about limiting the power of the government.

The mere fact that something is written in a legal document does not make it lawful.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Or is the Constitution Lawful because it constrains government agents with a series of formal rules, rather than letting the government do whatever it thought best at the time in an unconstrained and flexible way?

The whole axis is an incoherent mess of red robed basketball players. If you focus on the individual freedoms produced (the red robes) you think limited government is Chaotic. If you focus on the method of constraints on options for the government, reductions in flexibility of what policies can be considered, the rules and regulations (the tall basketball pro) you think limited government is Lawful.

The problem remains that those things have nothing to do with each other. An absolute monarch is Chaotic, he can legislate whatever he likes unconstrained by law, tradition, or anything other than his whim. A constitutional republic is Lawful, there are acres of formal laws, informal traditions, and generations of precedent that precisely define what legislation they can and can't pass.

The absolute monarch might command everyone to wear a uniform on a whim. Likewise a constitutional republic might consult their complex legal tradition and conclude their constitution required the abolition of slavery. The two things (the process of decision making and which conclusions are reached) aren't tied together.

[Malk_Content]

My problem with the "if you have different aspects of Law and Chaos you are neutral" then the same logic should apply to Good and Evil. Then, although maybe this is a pessimistic view of reality/setting, almost everyone is TN. Which I feel devalues the concept of TN.

[GM Rednal]

It may help to remember that each alignment is specifically said to have multiple interpretations, most or all of which could be correct even when they're in competition with each other. To put it another way, intent could be the factor that ultimately determines whether something is lawful or chaotic. A lawful individual is more likely to act in a consistent way over the long term, even if they don't necessarily think it's the best choice - a chaotic individual is more likely to do what they feel is better at the moment and won't necessarily act the same way in the future. Even if they both end up doing the same things, their reasons for the choice mean they're not actually as similar as they may seem at first.

[Planpanther]

Malk_Content wrote:

My problem with the "if you have different aspects of Law and Chaos you are neutral" then the same logic should apply to Good and Evil. Then, although maybe this is a pessimistic view of reality/setting, almost everyone is TN. Which I feel devalues the concept of TN.

IDK, its probably not that far off. I assume most characters are neutral good from a general perspective. Once you examine the individual on a focused level you can adjust from there. Typically, you need to have the power to drive change in some way to move out of neutrality. For example, someone who decides to join law enforcement will have a higher respect for order and tradition than the average person. An artist may use their media to challenge social norms in an attempt to drive social change. Those two examples are people that are more driven than a neutral individual and thus move out of that placement.

PCs are the folks that are choosing to stand up for change one way or the other. Its why they tend to have those law/chaos alignments more often than the average character. They are driven to act for their society/world. Now a neutral individual I believe has more of a self serving interest. They value both law enforcers and philosophers of discord equally. Though, they themselves are not driven one way or the other.

YMMV.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Malk_Content wrote:

My problem with the "if you have different aspects of Law and Chaos you are neutral" then the same logic should apply to Good and Evil. Then, although maybe this is a pessimistic view of reality/setting, almost everyone is TN. Which I feel devalues the concept of TN.

It has never been clear how 'broad' the alignments are. Suppose you have a continuum of evil with serial killer cannibals on one end and the jerk who is kinda rude to waiters on the other. How far down that continuum of nastiness do you have to go before you get 'Evil' on your character sheet?

Are the nastiest third of the population "evil"? The nastiest 10%. Only the really dangerous and violent top 1% of serious criminals?

Same is true of Lawful and Chaotic. Is the free spirited hippy down the block Chaotic or do you have to be an active revolutionary to qualify?

Personally I like my alignments pretty broad. It keeps the 'Bob detects as evil, I should stab him' to a minimum if the crooked innkeeper who waters down the wine and cheats his guests a bit qualifies. If only Baby Eating Madmen qualify then 'Detect Evil --> Smite' starts getting too common for my tastes.

[Dracomicron]

Law and Chaos was the original alignment axis in Basic D&D, before AD&D brought in Good and Evil.

Gygax was influenced largely by Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books, in which the primary conflict was between Law (represented by most of his heroes like Hawkmoon or Prince Corum) and Chaos (represented by demon Arioch-worshipping Elric of Melnibone' and his thirsty soul-drinking sword, Stormbringer). While Chaos was more traditionally "evil," it was acknowledged that the Lawful gods were jerks, too, and Chaos was also the font of creativity and freedom.

I would prefer that games do away with mandated morality systems, unless they are very specific, and actively tracked in-game, with game effects (such as Humanity in Vampire: The Masquerade).

Just saying that you are a Lawful Good paladin and then being able to murder a village of orcs, every male, female, and orcling, without penalty, just because they are of an evil race, is not a good representation of a moral or ethical system.

[Deadmanwalking]

Dracomicron wrote:

Just saying that you are a Lawful Good paladin and then being able to murder a village of orcs, every male, female, and orcling, without penalty, just because they are of an evil race, is not a good representation of a moral or ethical system.

This has very explicitly never been something you could do, by the rules, in Pathfinder or Golarion. Some GMs may have allowed it, but Pathfinder itself? Not so much.

[omniplex]

I prefer to have only beings with a supernatural connection to their alignment like clerics, outsiders and undead to be really affected by it. But, that doesn't really work when paladins want to smite evildoers.

[Mechagamera]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Dracomicron wrote:

Just saying that you are a Lawful Good paladin and then being able to murder a village of orcs, every male, female, and orcling, without penalty, just because they are of an evil race, is not a good representation of a moral or ethical system.

This has very explicitly never been something you could do, by the rules, in Pathfinder or Golarion. Some GMs may have allowed it, but Pathfinder itself? Not so much.

I don't know, it gets mentioned on the forums more often then spells, wizards, dragons, even goblins, so it must happen ever single session of every single game (except for mine). Surely it must be the Rawest of RAW things (rule -1 is Nothing can happen in the game until the paladin slaughters a bunch of orc babies and their dog (Old Yeller) and their sweet old Grandmother [who GM is named after] who never did anything wrong to anybody [except for a couple of gnomes and that doesn't count]).

I am sure there is a whole section of the forums that I haven't found full of testimonies with dates and times by forum goers who have seen these terrible, terrible events, and other important information like what the paladin's DPR was, how optimized were they, and what kind of magic weapons/armor they had. How can History judge these atrocities without documentation?

Otherwise, we might have to conclude it happens less often than a 20th level fighter casts wish....

[Dracomicron]

Mechagamera wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Dracomicron wrote:

Just saying that you are a Lawful Good paladin and then being able to murder a village of orcs, every male, female, and orcling, without penalty, just because they are of an evil race, is not a good representation of a moral or ethical system.

This has very explicitly never been something you could do, by the rules, in Pathfinder or Golarion. Some GMs may have allowed it, but Pathfinder itself? Not so much.

I don't know, it gets mentioned on the forums more often then spells, wizards, dragons, even goblins, so it must happen ever single session of every single game (except for mine). Surely it must be the Rawest of RAW things (rule -1 is Nothing can happen in the game until the paladin slaughters a bunch of orc babies and their dog (Old Yeller) and their sweet old Grandmother [who GM is named after] who never did anything wrong to anybody [except for a couple of gnomes and that doesn't count]).

I am sure there is a whole section of the forums that I haven't found full of testimonies with dates and times by forum goers who have seen these terrible, terrible events, and other important information like what the paladin's DPR was, how optimized were they, and what kind of magic weapons/armor they had. How can History judge these atrocities without documentation?

Otherwise, we might have to conclude it happens less often than a 20th level fighter casts wish....

I do appreciate the facetiousness, but I saw that sort of thing enough when I was young that it actually was a thing that happened. Heck, in old 1E monster manuals, you could just randomly encounter 4-400 orcs and be justified in killing their whole tribe because they were listed as Chaotic Evil.

Players can be vicious! In a recent Starfinder scenario, my teammates murdered an innocent animal-like alien controlled by bad folks despite my character pleading for them to spare its life because it would have taken a penalty to their attack or damage roll to switch to non-lethal methods... and that has happened more than once in the past few months.

So yeah, the orc village thing is an extreme case that maybe happens less now, but in less introspective times, or with less introspective players and GMs, things like that still happen plenty.

Wouldn't it be better for alignment and game mechanics to be largely separate, so you don't HAVE to worry about a character LOSING THEIR POWERS over an action that they feel is justified? It's only a recipe for arguments and hard feelings.

[Seisho]

If you kill everyone in a village, including the defenseless, it is clearly an act of evil, no matter what a monster manual says (and I don't think we should look to those things)

And your teammates sound a bit like jerks - if that would happen to me more then once I would probably try to convice their characters with my - and if it keeps up maybe even talk about it ooc

and the argument what to kill is in pathfinder definitly challanged, I think there is even a pic of our iconic cavalier (forgot the name) who was carrying a bunch of goblin children because he wasnt evil enough (or couldnt justify it, he was LN if I remember correctly) to just kill them off

[Crayon]

Seisho wrote:

If you kill everyone in a village, including the defenseless, it is clearly an act of evil, no matter what a monster manual says (and I don't think we should look to those things)

And your teammates sound a bit like jerks - if that would happen to me more then once I would probably try to convice their characters with my - and if it keeps up maybe even talk about it ooc

and the argument what to kill is in pathfinder definitly challanged, I think there is even a pic of our iconic cavalier (forgot the name) who was carrying a bunch of goblin children because he wasnt evil enough (or couldnt justify it, he was LN if I remember correctly) to just kill them off

Hayato, the iconic Samurai.

[Deadmanwalking]

Seisho wrote:

and the argument what to kill is in pathfinder definitly challanged, I think there is even a pic of our iconic cavalier (forgot the name) who was carrying a bunch of goblin children because he wasnt evil enough (or couldnt justify it, he was LN if I remember correctly) to just kill them off

The picture is actually the Iconic Samurai, who is LG. Still a valid point.

[Rogar Valertis]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I honestly have trouble telling the difference between NG and CG in practice, unless I look at someone's character sheet. Since both are in the sort of place where they break the rules when it suits them, in order to create the greatest good. I'm not really sure these are actually different alignments, really.

A neutral good character will do good things because he personally feels it's the right thing to do. He won't challenge the laws of the land unless they are clearly unjust and even then he won't go out of his way to change them. On the other hand he won't feel any remorse in violating such laws in order to accomplish good.

A Chaotic Good character won't care for laws or authority figures in general although he will not break them if he feels they make sense and probably won't challenge authority figures if they do good, on the other hand he will always be suspicious of them. For a chaotic good character doing good, break the law and then move on is not enough. A chaotic good character will also go on a crusade against the law and will go out of his way not only to defeat evil authority figures but also to question the very meaning of their position.

Example:

Slavers are riding their halfling slaves to the auction block.

NG character will ambush them, free the slaves, help them escape and then vanish into the night.

CG character will ambush the slavers, free the slaves, help them escape, and then keep fighting against the regulators who made slavery legal in the country. He will also make it clear to everyone who will listen how base and unjust the tyranny of law is and how every good person has a moral duty to uphold freedom against such evils.

[johnlocke90]

Crayon wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

If a person makes tons of laws and enforces them, but doesn't also apply the laws to himself. How is that not still a lawful act? Each enforcement of law should count as a lawful act. The person has literally increased the lawfulness of the universe. How is he not lawful?

Because what you're descibing isn't enforcing law. It's imposing your whims on others - in short, Chaotic. Furthermore, characters' alignment is based upon their choices - if a character's personal choices aren't governed by some sort of deducible morality, that character isn't Lawful by definition .

A Lawful society would need certain exceptions within its legal system (military law, canon law, diplomatic immunity, etc), but because Lawful characters actually believe in Order, they would thus seek to avoid such situations where possible.

It describes devils very well. They have a bunch of laws for his subordinates, but don't apply them to themselves. They torment followers for fun and lie when they can get away with it.

[johnlocke90]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Dracomicron wrote:

Just saying that you are a Lawful Good paladin and then being able to murder a village of orcs, every male, female, and orcling, without penalty, just because they are of an evil race, is not a good representation of a moral or ethical system.

This has very explicitly never been something you could do, by the rules, in Pathfinder or Golarion. Some GMs may have allowed it, but Pathfinder itself? Not so much.

Champions of Purity states you can.

Quote:

A good character whobelieves the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

[Arachnofiend]

Torag's the god for you if you want your Paladin to be really racist. He doesn't even accept surrender from the enemies of dwarfkind!

[Deadmanwalking]

johnlocke90 wrote:

Champions of Purity states you can.

Quote:

A good character whobelieves the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

Someone always brings that up. This version is taken out of context a bit and frankly, per James Jacobs basically a mistake, at least in terms of world lore. I know because I actually asked James Jacobs about it and got an answer.

[Deadmanwalking]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Torag's the god for you if you want your Paladin to be really racist. He doesn't even accept surrender from the enemies of dwarfkind!

There are no canonical references to Torag considering people enemies based on species. He certainly considers most Orcs enemies, and for good reason, but a Good Orc who isn't an enemy of the Dwarf people wouldn't fall under that edict at all.

[johnlocke90]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Champions of Purity states you can.

Quote:

A good character whobelieves the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

Someone always brings that up. This version is taken out of context a bit and frankly, per James Jacobs basically a mistake, at least in terms of world lore. I know because I actually asked James Jacobs about it and got an answer.

Jacobs has also said we shouldn't quote his forum posts as authoritative. He hasn't thought its wrong enough to put out an errata.

The only authoritative statement we have on killing younglings is that a good character can do it. Clearly, its not "very explicitly never been something you could do", as you stated earlier.

[Deadmanwalking]

johnlocke90 wrote:

He hasn't thought its wrong enough to put out an errata.

It's from a player's companion book. They don't do errata for those no matter how screwed up they are.

And like I said, it's not just the James Jacobs quote, it's that your quote is horribly out of context. It's originally part of a long list of options basically saying that it's up to the individual GM, not a definitive endorsement of any particular option.

[gustavo iglesias]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And like I said, it's not just the James Jacobs quote, it's that your quote is horribly out of context. It's originally part of a long list of options basically saying that it's up to the individual GM, not a definitive endorsement of any particular option.

However, he is not arguing that such option is the only available outcome for Good characters. He defends that it is possible to do that, and stay good.

[Dracoknight]

I am in the opinion hat Order/Chaos is a better axis than Good/Evil. Good and Evil is in reality pretty vague concepts compared to what Order and Chaos is, but then again all concepts are subjective. "What is order for the spider, is chaos for the fly"

[Weather Report]

Rogar Valertis wrote:

Example:

Slavers are riding their halfling slaves to the auction block.

NG character will ambush them, free the slaves, help them escape and then vanish into the night.

CG character will ambush the slavers, free the slaves, help them escape, and then keep fighting against the regulators who made slavery legal in the country. He will also make it clear to everyone who will listen how base and unjust the tyranny of law is and how every good person has a moral duty to uphold freedom against such evils.

Nice example, LG is the uncompromising, stern, by-the-book good guy, CG is the advocate for everyman, fight the power that be, NG is the voice of reason guy, try to get things moving in a positive direction.

The Dude/Jeffrey Lebowski seems NG, to me.

[Aldarc]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Torag's the god for you if you want your Paladin to be really racist. He doesn't even accept surrender from the enemies of dwarfkind!

All I have gotten out of your contributions to this thread is that you have a major beef with Torag.

[Deadmanwalking]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

However, he is not arguing that such option is the only available outcome for Good characters. He defends that it is possible to do that, and stay good.

And that's where the linked statement that the idea of doing that being okay was not the intent of anyone at Paizo comes in. It's a clear statement of intent, and supported by every single bit of Alignment description and adventures in pretty much every book except that one.

In short, it's very clear that the quoted sentence was a mistake.

[MuddyVolcano]

Law and Chaos are as opposite one another as Good and Evil, right? If we make a compass, one is at one end, and the other is the opposite.

And, when interpreting Law and Chaos, people draw in real-world analogies, which is only reasonable.

However, because these concepts're opposites--and opposites in a different way than the heroism that can be g. vs. e.-the less-favored of that axis gets associated with "the outlook I hate."

Examples I've seen: Lawful is totaliarianistic. Law is about real-world institutionalized religion messing you up (insert valid concerns here).
Examples I've seen: Chaos is Dictatorship because it comes down to the me-me-me of one person. Chaos is selfishness and bullying or murderhobo.

Overall, I suppose I'm seeing overtones of Liberal v Conservatives, Religious v non, references of childhood trauma, and so on and other elements associated with this axis that's just...

...distinctly uncomfortable. Am I making sense, and am I the only one seeing it?

I am not going to ask someone to "get over it." What concerns me is how tightly held these beliefs appear to be for many, many strong REAL WORLD reasons that it makes me think the entire thing is more divisive than E vs G could ever be.

[Deadmanwalking]

I don't know, people also definitely have a tendency to associate 'beliefs I agree with' with Good, while those they disagree with get labeled Evil.

I've seen that quite a lot in Alignment discussions, actually, and it can get pretty divisive when a real life belief of Person A is labeled Evil by Person B.

This is not to say this doesn't also happen with Law and Chaos, it does, but I'm not at all convinced it's any worse.

[Planpanther]

The issue is everyone goes right past everyday working examples and goes straight to the most extreme corner cases. Folks have a much better grasp on good and evil than law and chaos.

[MuddyVolcano]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I don't know, people also definitely have a tendency to associate 'beliefs I agree with' with Good, while those they disagree with get labeled Evil.

I've seen that quite a lot in Alignment discussions, actually, and it can get pretty divisive when a real life belief of Person A is labeled Evil by Person B.

This is not to say this doesn't also happen with Law and Chaos, it does, but I'm not at all convinced it's any worse.

I guess with Good and Evil, there's a tradition to fall back on that ties into philosophy.

With L & C, it appears more personal. Does that make sense? The stories we get are: I have trauma from organized religion. Or, I have trauma and associate this x, or so on.

Like, Good versus Evil can be debated when talking about heroic actions in fantasy. Whereas, Law and Chaos is more one's internal belief structure at every level, tied to the real world.

[MuddyVolcano]

Planpanther wrote:

The issue is everyone goes right past everyday working examples and goes straight to the most extreme corner cases. Folks have a much better grasp on good and evil than law and chaos.

That definitely does happen, and contributes to it, I think. What I'm noticing is the internal aspect of these beliefs makes them more divisive, as well.

Law and Chaos to a person, seem to favor an internal compass and get aligned with specific real-world experiences and beliefs.

With evil vs good, people do not mind switching sides as much, because interpretation can be more "this is part of the game" and less "I hold this close to my chest."

With good and evil, we get: "I want to play the villain" versus "I want to play the hero, today."

With Law and Chaos, we get things like: In the US, "free will" is taken very seriously for example. Chaos then, can take on overtones of national pride or belief in a democracy--even though democracy is an organized system and could be argued to be Lawful. Lawful then gets associated with totalitarian regimes. I've seen that happen a few times and it's...distinctly uncomfortable because it relies on deeply held, external beliefs.

[Planpanther]

In my personal experience, over the years there has been a continual hyper focus on good being GOOD, and evil being EVIL. Without any regard for levels of severity or nuance.

There is good reason for that, since many folks choose evil alignments and then go around terrorizing the GMs NPCs and even their fellow PCs. A common rule to ensure some level of cohesion in groups is that evil is banned. That solves the disruptive evil player, but it does nothing to stop the disruptive good player. Paladins are the poster child for this overlooked archetype. Though, since good is GOOD, its allowed, and folks have had to put up with that sh!# for a long time. That archetype has been commonly called lawful stupid.

I think this behavior has spilled over into law and chaos. Folks often think lawful means a good person and chaos means a bad person. Some folks play chaos as gonzo random and license to break any law as they see fit. Which is why you see a lot of chaotic neutral banning. Folks assume they can avoid the law and do evil things, but not be branded GOOD or EVIL.

My point about all that is you can be lawful or chaotic without being a caricature. Same with good and evil. At my table our best games are when we have a grab bag of different alignments. We have a great RP experience everytime. It hasn't always been this way. Back in my earliest experiences a lack of maturity often lead to the extreme examples I mentioned earlier. Im now convinced that an entire book, hard or soft cover, on alignment might be an excellent supplement for Paizo.

As for the real life trauma politics comparison, I believe that is a more recent development. I have seen cases were its very relevant to the topic (Paizo child abuse demon) and other times its a stretch into a thinly veiled argument to get rid of something the person doesnt like. You can pretty much distinguish the two with context. Since there isnt an easy divide like good and evil, people have to go out on a further limb to make their case against law/chaos.

This isnt just happening with alignment. When was the last time you read about a movie or TV show that didn't include all kinds of unrelated political discussion? Often, that is a good thing because collectively our society is examining our beliefs and norms. However, on occasion, it makes a villain out of an author for something they had no intent towards. Folks really need to keep things in context. Though I suppose thats not easy when folks are choosing to operate in a limited character media. YMMV

[Malk_Content]

But the everyday working examples tend you towards neutral don't they? If you are only a little bit Chaotic or a little bit Lawful or a mix as most people are you come out at neutral on the axis don't you? There is a cut off point, sure. But nobody seems to agree on where that cutoff point is. Thus the only way to unambiguously talk about those alignments is to talk about the extremes as anything less than them might fall past someone else's line into not being chaotic enough to have a C on your character sheet.

[gustavo iglesias]

Dracomicron wrote:

Law and Chaos was the original alignment axis in Basic D&D, before AD&D brought in Good and Evil.

Gygax was influenced largely by Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books, in which the primary conflict was between Law (represented by most of his heroes like Hawkmoon or Prince Corum) and Chaos (represented by demon Arioch-worshipping Elric of Melnibone' and his thirsty soul-drinking sword, Stormbringer). While Chaos was more traditionally "evil," it was acknowledged that the Lawful gods were jerks, too, and Chaos was also the font of creativity and freedom.

Imperious from Diablo 3 is a good example of a LG that can be a villain.

[Planpanther]

Malk_Content wrote:

But the everyday working examples tend you towards neutral don't they? If you are only a little bit Chaotic or a little bit Lawful or a mix as most people are you come out at neutral on the axis don't you? There is a cut off point, sure. But nobody seems to agree on where that cutoff point is. Thus the only way to unambiguously talk about those alignments is to talk about the extremes as anything less than them might fall past someone else's line into not being chaotic enough to have a C on your character sheet.

Not necessarily. If you do a thousand things a day lawfully, then you lean lawful. If you do 1001 things that day, but one is incredibly important, yet not lawful, I'd argue that you are still lawful. You cant put a gun to somebody's head in one moment, and then expect them to act that way forever.

[Malk_Content]

But 1000 things is an extreme... I'm not sure any normal person makes a dozen choices a day that have anything do to with any sort of principle. So you are, in my mind, using an extreme to dispute the idea that extremes are the only way to clearly communicate about this issue without getting muddled.

[Planpanther]

Ok then reduce it to a believable number. You do 10 things a day lawful and 1 not under considerable duress. Still works unless you are determined for it to not work. Which is another tactic of the extreme corner case argument.

[Malk_Content]

Planpanther wrote:

Ok then reduce it to a believable number. You do 10 things a day lawful and 1 not under considerable duress. Still works unless you are determined for it to not work. Which is another tactic of the extreme corner case argument.

You and I can agree on that, probably. But would you agree that a 4/1 ratio is enough to be not neutral. Or a 2/1? These are all pretty reasonable lines to draw as well. Or what if you do 10 minor lawful things and 1 major chaotic? A reasonable argument could be that those minor actions are just a matter of course and not indicative of a persons alignment while the major action is. Another reasonable argument could be that the chaotic again was an exception to the rule and shouldn't be considered until it was a more significant percentage.

The point being the only way to be absolutely clear what is a representation of an alignment would like to a broad audience is an extreme. This happens on both axis to be fair, but the Law/Chaos one is more nebulous and not intuitive.

[GM Rednal]

Yup. Alignments are the overall trend of a character. You can do non-lawful things on a fairly regular basis and still remain lawful as long as it's the general behavior of your character.

(The most notable example of this is probably Paladins doing chaotic things. They can't do evil without problems, but they can absolutely act in a chaotic matter if the situation warrants it. They're probably not even going to get frowned at by whatever supplies their power.)

[Planpanther]

Malk_Content wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

Ok then reduce it to a believable number. You do 10 things a day lawful and 1 not under considerable duress. Still works unless you are determined for it to not work. Which is another tactic of the extreme corner case argument.

You and I can agree on that, probably. But would you agree that a 4/1 ratio is enough to be not neutral. Or a 2/1? These are all pretty reasonable lines to draw as well. Or what if you do 10 minor lawful things and 1 major chaotic? A reasonable argument could be that those minor actions are just a matter of course and not indicative of a persons alignment while the major action is. Another reasonable argument could be that the chaotic again was an exception to the rule and shouldn't be considered until it was a more significant percentage.

The point being the only way to be absolutely clear what is a representation of an alignment would like to a broad audience is an extreme. This happens on both axis to be fair, but the Law/Chaos one is more nebulous and not intuitive.

Its absolutely clear when you put it on your character sheet. When it becomes unclear is when the character acts out of alignment regularly both during duress and via free will. Sample size varies by table. I see this as a feature.

Not trying to continue to be contrary by the way. I just happen to love alignment discussions. I would like to say, I'm enjoying this back and forth discussion that has remained, IMO, cordial.