POLL: Alignment

Remove all ads!

Oh come now Felinoid/Arendil, you're just parroting the ridiculously simple explanations you've read in the manuals. Do you steal or not? Do you respect "the Law" or not? Let's try to be a little more subtle, shall we? To do so we would have to define some terms that are almost impossible for this quick debate. Some questions to clarify:

What is Law? And who makes the Law? Does Law come from the State, or from religion, or perhaps from a personal sense of right and wrong? Is there a Natural Law? Where does this come from?

In plenty of pomo French theory, you can read about the State as being the genesis of Law (which indeed, technically it is). For many of these French thinkers, following Rouseau, State Law is the origin of much human evil; reflexively, that which opposes law is often championed: the voice of the people, of the oppressed, etc. Sometimes even, this leads to sympathy for insurgencies of various kinds, from anti-colonialist to oppressed nationalist groups, etc, which seek to overthrough the dominant Law. However, one can ask: are these insurgencies actually against Law? Or rather, are they just being very Lawful, for a different Law?

Could one then say that "Lawfulness" is an extent to which one is committed to the rules of one or more organization, institution, nation, religion, etc? Perhaps the above insurgents have to be even more Lawful than those under the rule of the State: is it Lawful to be a fanatic believer in a cause, to be a zealot, or to care about a cause enough to sacrifice one's life?

What if one is very mindful of one Law, and couldn't care less about another Law? In the US, white settlers saw themselves as bringing civilization, democracy, Christianity, and Law to the (Chaotic) savages. But weren't Native Americans just as Lawful, according to their own laws?

So, to be Chaotic, must you be against any kind of Law? How do people come together to fight for "no Law?"

I brought up the Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva triumvirate above for a reason.

In the Basic rules OD&D, you could be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. In the early modules, to be Lawful was to be on the side of justice and human civilization, to be Chaotic was to either be a monster or a villain of some kind, and to be Neutral was to be an animal, an elf (here I think they borrowed from tolkein the separation from human affairs and called it neutrality), or a human who wasn't perhaps always committed to the aims of civilization. By the time you get to Immortal rules OD&D, it's completely different: it's all mixed up in some kind of intertwined set of planes, with magic identified with chaos, etc. So is magic chaotic, or is magic the opposite of human civilization or what.

What I'm trying to say is that DnD alignment doesn't really hold up at all to any kind of analysis beyond the "what do you think of stealing" kind of question. To use it in real life would be absurd. Sure, some people are more prone to lying than others, but does that necessarily mean that they're Chaotic? Are politicians Lawful or Chaotic? What about someone who claims to be apathetic about most causes (is that Chaotic?), but then suddenly becomes a zealot for a cause (is that Lawful?)

People change all the time, but the AD&D system imagines that alignment is the foundation of the game universe. Using the fact that you do or do not download MP3's seems like a lame way to define how one fits in with the universe. Probably, as a rule, adolescents think of themselves as more Chaotic than adults; when they get older and take on more responsibilities, almost invariably they think of themselves as more Lawful...

My point is, if you try to extend these things to "real life", it becomes a bit more absurd. At first I wanted to say: one's preferences mean nothing unless they're tied to politics and action. But then the question arises: what exactly would Chaotic politics, or a Chaotic State, look like?

 

So, then any reason someone has for anything they do is therefore a Law? Law is the dominantly accepted rules of a society or region's government. It has to be enforceable to be a Law. (Cults don't count, and I personally don't think any religion does either, unless the society is a theocracy.)

EDIT: This is straight from Webster's:

 

Religion goes first. If someone offers me cash for doing something illegal, he can get bent. But if an authority figure wants me to do something against the rules of my religion, he can get bent.

 

Then I might very well classify you as NG, chevalier. You obey the law when you can, but other priorities (in this case, religion) are first, which I can certainly respect, being CG myself.

Also, I didn't mean to suggest that religion doesn't count at all, just that it doesn't count as law. It can certainly be counted as ethics or morality.

 

The thing is, my religion has a concept of natural law when it comes to morality and I also tend to favour natural law schools over positive law schools in my legal studies. Basically as much as a person can be lawful or not, so can be laws. You may very well have a chaotic law as much as you can have an evil one. Too much law is chaos. If you overdo Dumb Laws (tm), it becomes a chaotic tyranny. Laws are a product of human reason and as such they answer before it. While this doesn't mean that individual citizens are tiny little constitutional courts, it still means that if a law defies reason, it's not a lawful law... it's not law, first of all. It's just a freaking dumb bill or enactment. When it's evil, to be Lawful, you don't have to obey any more than a paladin would have to obey duergar laws.

I guess the first best rudimentary check for a Lawful alignment would be who goes first: you or the society. Again, this obviously needs some modifying with CG (benevolent) and LE (hardly altruistic).

If you respect laws, customs and people's legitimate wishes so far as possible, while also trying to do good to people, it's probably Lawful Good.

If you don't go against the law or customs too much without a sufficient need but can't be bothered too much, either, it's probably Neutral Good.

If you have no use for laws, rules, regulations, procedures and don't care what people what or think but still wish them no wrong and try to be on the good side, that's probably Neutral Good.

If you have no use for moral intricacies but instead rely on a social contract and believe in law above morality, that's Lawful Neutral.

If neither morality nor laws will stop you from achieving your goals but you still try to avoid hurting bystanders and generally don't hurt people for your own benefit or pleasure but can't be bothered, that's probably True Neutral.

If you don't give a damn about any morals or customs without taking pleasure in hurting people, that's probably Chaotic Neutral.

If you believe that morality holds you or the society back but still have fondness or use for organised society, seek profit at other people's expense and are willing to sacrifice others for the advancement of your goals, that's probably Lawful Evil.

If you are focused on yourself and no act is too foul when it comes to achieving your goals, that's probably Neutral Evil.

If you are focused on yourself, have no use for any structue and are willing to walk on corpses to have things your way, especially if you're also much into random destruction, that's probably Chaotic Evil.

 

You know, I used to whine a lot about this topic and how "Lawful is this-and-not-actually-that," but now I think I've figured out that arguing - on the Internet, of all places - about the philsophies of a fantasy adventure game that we somehow apply to real life is a pretty big waste of time.

I said Neutral (keeping up with the times, it's just Neutral now, not True Neutral), but I really think that I don't have an alignment, since I am not a D&D character.

 

According to hedron's quiz there, I really am Lawful Good. I even said that I don't give to the community, or to beggers, and I wouldn't fight tot he death for the good of others. But hey, I always really suspected it.

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Stupid female wordings.

 

Neutral Good -- and I did say Iwould fight to the death for the good of others and give to beggers....

 

I didn't notice hedron's quiz until reepnorp mentioned it, but I just took it, and guess what?
Chaotic Neutral, bi-atch!

EDIT: You should try it, Bion. You might even get LN.

[ June 24, 2005, 18:27: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

In the Wizards' test, I got Lawful Good despite the fact that I selected:

• "Besmirch the reputation of the elders as you ignore their scorn"
  (Actually, I would try to find a reasonable way out of the situation but not at the cost of owning up to something I haven't done. I stand up when people are being unjustly scolded, punished for something they didn't do etc etc, by whomever it is. I got my conduct grade lowered for pointing out the dishonesty of charges against a guy I wasn't exactly best friends with. I respect their opinions and ask for them a lot but I make my decisions. I gently but firmly turn down any repeated suggestions regarding my clothes or haircut. )
• "They're often out of touch with my life" (they=family elders) (Again, I don't exactly think that but "sometimes" would fit perfectly. I wouldn't come up with that thought on my own because I don't think of them that way. But I have to agree with the thought now that it has been articulated. See above. Or below.)
• "Subtly work against the union" (I would actually even flee if there were no other way... no one's marrying me to someone I don't want to marry, not to mention such a marriage is legally null and void per Canon Law in most if not cases, anyway. And I stand up to elder family members or any authority figure if he/she wants to do something illegal or wrong. Or even treat someone badly without a reason.)
• "No, although it's sure nice to be repaid" (I want bigger sums returned, although I am flexible about the term and could be convinced to remit the debt; I don't care about coins. If I needed a written contract, the person wouldn't likely be a friend, anyway. If he didn't pay me back because of the lack of written proof of loan, I would consider it a bargain because I could know his true nature and stay away from him.)
• "No, I move around too much" (Does having a couple of old friends on your contact list qualify for being in touch? Things go on in life.)
• "No, I'd make the magistrates prove my guilt" (Not sure there, so I selected this one just in case. What I know is I wouldn't lie and wouldn't suffer to see someone else being blamed for what I've done. But I surely wouldn't want to serve a jail time for a victimless crime. I wouldn't confess to a crime if there were an exculpating circumstance that I couldn't prove. I wouldn't confess if I didn't feel the act was wrong and putting up a show of civil disobedience in the court didn't look like a good idea. Etc etc.)

I still got LG.

[ June 24, 2005, 18:47: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

@chevalier:
Well, the US is really more of a theocracy, so (if that's where you are) you could be considered LG. Besides, that's only 6 out of 36. The alignment grid doesn't have enough sections to completely describe everyone's personality. IMHO, it's more along the lines of what you're closest to. I (almost) always keep my word when I give it to someone, but that doesn't mean I'm lawful. It just means I respect myself enough not to turn myself into a liar.

 

I got Neutral on the test. Perhaps accurate. I am unsure. I guess I make up equally with logic and complete randomness in general I guess I try and follow the rules of most places, the ones that I see a point to, anyhow, in general I do what I wish when I wish to. I won't, for example, steal, kill, or miss a homework (completely unrelated, but still ) as I respect life and posession (and that doesn't just suit me) but also I have better things to do with my time than sit in a room being glared at by a middle aged man while I attempt to concentrate on catching up but as per usual. If I can get away with it, I'll test the limit when I'm not being a coward at least

 

Oh come now, that's no fun. Why are we all on this site anyway?

Good point! Alignments only make sense relative to the campaign you're in, and the consensus of the DM and players. Within that consensus, there's a huge amount of room to maneuver.

That's why no one's come up with a systematic argument as to law, chaos, good, and evil mean. The only arguments offered so far have been categorical: LG people behave like this, NG like this, etc, with no real argument about what actually makes the distinction. What's the difference between a CE tyranny of laws and a LE tyranny of laws? Are the laws of commerce lawful or chaotic? Is the stereotypical loner hero running around combating evil due to a strong personal sense of right and wrong LG or CG? If Law is a matter of the State and the consensus of the majority, our hero might be CG; conversely, if Law refers to some kind of Natural Law, as Chev argues, this character might very well be LG.

Not that I'm anti-alignment in DnD; in fact, I think that it's a rather elegant way to compress alot of cues as to how a pc or npc might behave in a mere two words. But exactly what alignment means has to come down to the individual campaign, as the distinctions given by alignment really aren't that clear (which is why arguing over alignment and behavior is an essential part of the PnP DnD experience.)

And yeah, thinking about alignment in RL is a totally harmless exercise, and one that can be helpful in planning campaigns. But I still find it amusing to see all of us with modern 9-5 lives imagining that we have the same range of choice, and the same capacity for chaos, as people from a medieval fantasy setting complete with monsters, gods, and demons: What a bunch of Walter Mitty's we all are!

You rebel you!

 

The test for me showed I was Neutral Good, not too far off from what I think I am. There are a couple answers that could have gone either way, but I think it was fairly close.

 

Heh, Neutral Good, which IMO is the closest match.

 

My alignment is anyones guess. I dont know where I stand in the order of things, thats for sure. Hedron's test, however, made me a Chaotic Neutral person.

I will take it.
Pretty close to evil, I must say. :/

/feels a bit uneasy

 

That test says I'm CE. Yay for me....

(I am evil, nbot stupid, and I am also VERY lazy. That is why there are no corpses in the basement...)

 

Chaotic Neutral does not mean close to evil

Neutral characters are very rarely balanced in good and evil, often leaning towards good or evil but not usually by much. Just because on tables liting alignments show CG next to LE doesn't mean it is close to evil than good

 

That's practically the definition of CN! You do whatever the heck strikes you at the moment, so it's hard to classify. Welcome to the nutty club!

 

Realistically, I'm LG -- I believe that laws are important to the creation and maintenance of a healthy society, and I believe in helping others, respecting others, and otherwise being Christian -- religiously speaking, a practising Christian is told to "submit" to temporal authority and "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", which is pretty lawful in my books.

Given the possibility of a cruel or repressive government, I might go with NG, but overall, I'm a dull LG, I'm afraid.