(no subject)

[prismakaos]

[11:09] David Green: you can care about a person more than the fate of the world and still be lawful right?
[11:09] Me: uhj
[11:09] Me: i dunno
[11:09] Me: maybe
[11:10] David Green: thing is, i don't see why not
[11:10] David Green: i couldn't find anything, upon further examination, that made the two contradict
[11:11] Me: because if you care more about the person
[11:11] Me: than about the world
[11:11] Me: then if the bad guy who has the person
[11:11] Me: says "betray the world for this person" and you do...
[11:11] Me: that's chaotic
[11:11] David Green: whoa, no way.
[11:11] Me: because lawful people'd be like "um, no"
[11:11] David Green: nonono
[11:11] David Green: GOOD people would be like um no
[11:12] David Green: Lawful people could do it so long as they were clear on what was going on, and they got the evil guy's word that he'd let the captive go afterwards.
[11:12] David Green: i mean, wouldn't a lawful evil person do that, certainly?
[11:12] Me: but i think you compromise the majority of the world
[11:13] David Green: i don't have a responsibility to the world though
[11:14] David Green: well, no more than anyone else
[11:14] Me: see, i always felt that chaotic basically meant that you were out for yourself above all
[11:14] Me: and that lawful was the communal thing
[11:15] Me: and then good vs bad were moral type things
[11:15] David Green: ah
[11:16] David Green: yeah, we have different conceptions then
[11:16] Me: yeah
[11:16] David Green: well, i agree on good vs bad being moral/ethical
[11:16] David Green: but to me law/chaos have nothing to do with other people
[11:16] David Green: they just have to do with your own personal code of behaviour
[11:17] Me: so, whether you follow the laws or not?
[11:18] David Green: yes, but also whether you subscribe to discipline and order in your actions and way of living, or if you're more of a free spirit, wander-about carefree soul who does what she wants because it feels good.
[11:18] David Green: in fact, it's moreso the latter. following laws are a possible subset of consequences for having discipline and order.
[11:18] Me: see but i think that gets into personal responsbilitiy vs not
[11:19] David Green: in one's actions
[11:19] Me: you'd have a greater personal responsibility to respect others
[11:20] Me: in my mind, the uber lawful person is a democrat, and the uber chaotic person is libertarian
[11:20] David Green: whoa
[11:20] Me: coz on the one hand, government should protect and mandate all
[11:20] Me: and on the other hand, libertarians firmly believe that no power should EVER rest with the government
[11:21] David Green: but, see, those are political philosophies...i don't think they're congruent with the concepts of lawful or choatic behaviour.
[11:21] Me: but in ideals, they are
[11:21] David Green: they may have some overlap, sure, but i don't think the overlap for one is limited to touching only one of the other.
[11:22] Me: i'm curious as to what matt would say
[11:22] David Green: Okay, I want to ask you why you think the lawful person would have a greater responsibility towards others.
[11:22] David Green: But I think you're just going to answer with what you already said, which is "Because I believe law means X and choas means Y"
[11:22] David Green: Which I can't really accept because I disagree with that outlook.
[11:23] David Green: Yeah, I'm curious too.
[11:23] David Green: Or Mike.
[11:23] Me: because to a lawful neutral person (which is the extreme of the law, untainted by morals) believes that the law/rules set down for a society mandate his actions
[11:23] Me: thus, if you're evil or good, you're twisting those laws to suit your purpose, but never really stepping over them
[11:23] David Green: Ooh...right there. RIght there I disagree.
[11:23] Me: a chaotic person says "fuck the laws"
[11:23] Me: and runs with it
[11:24] David Green: You're equating "lawful" with "laws" set down by society. It's the same word, but one are concrete rules written on paper and the other is a behavioural philosophy.
[11:24] Me: i basically think that *in the realm of DnD*, laws are the external expression/framework for lawful characters
[11:24] David Green: I don't think lawfulness as an alignment has any inherent binding to societal laws.
[11:24] David Green: What about lawful people who exist in realms where there is no government?
[11:25] Me: then they're basically ignoring societal norms, and i'd argue that in that context, they'd probably be chaotic
[11:25] Me: i don't think you can have absolute lawfulness
[11:25] Me: there needs to be an external expression of it
[11:25] David Green: Okay. Yeah, we have a very different outlook. I'm not sure we're going to agree on this.
[11:25] David Green: Hmm, right there.
[11:25] Me: yeah, i somehow doubt it
[11:26] David Green: Great word choice.
[11:26] David Green: That's the crux.
[11:26] David Green: Internal vs. external expression.
[11:26] David Green: I'm arguing internal, you're arguing externa.
[11:26] David Green: external*
[11:26] Me: yeah, basically
[11:26] Me: i think this goes back to expression and demeanor
[11:26] David Green: Oh, nature and demeanor you mean?
[11:27] David Green: Yeah. Kind of.
[11:27] Me: where on the one hand, you can have internal beliefs and then do something against that
[11:27] Me: and i remember we had a talk about what makes alignment and i think we argued that actions define alignment
[11:27] Me: not necessarily how you feel inside coz otherwise dirk would be chaotic
[11:27] David Green: Right.
[11:28] Me: but the actions can only be seen in a relative light, right?
[11:28] David Green: But the actions can only be influenced and controlled from the inside.
[11:28] Me: so...
[11:28] Me: i guess the quesiton becomes whether alignment is determined by observers to the actions or the person whose actioning
[11:28] David Green: *nod*
[11:28] David Green: External vs. internal again.
[11:29] David Green: And I would vote the latter.
[11:29] David Green: Because I think intent plays a large part of this.
[11:29] Me: and i'd argue that if you were born into a chaotic socity, that would be the norm and what was expected (thus appearance of lawful) and being lawful in that context would make you appear chaotic
[11:29] David Green: If you intend to not shoot the criminal who just killed your mother but you slip and pull the trigger and kill him, that doesn't make you chaotic.
[11:29] David Green: It might make you seem chaotic to observers, though.
[11:30] Me: right
[11:30] Me: the actions are chaotic, perhaps the intent is not
[11:30] David Green: Yeah, I'm sorry, I have to really disagree with the example you just gave.
[11:30] Me: hehe
[11:30] Me: okay
[11:31] Me: we're going to end up disagreeing on thi
[11:31] *** "David Green" signed off at Wed Jul 25 11:31:09 2007.
[11:31] *** "David Green" signed on at Wed Jul 25 11:31:18 2007.
[11:31] David Green: sorry, can you say that again?
[11:31] David Green: AIM keeps crashing on me
[11:31] Me: basically, we're going to end up disagreeing on this point
[11:31] David Green: *nod*
[11:32] Me: it's like matt's original character, sameryn
[11:32] Me: where he was lg
[11:32] Me: and he kept doing things in a way that was lawful and in sticking with his god
[11:32] Me: at least to his mind
[11:33] Me: and the rest of us were arguing that no, it wasn't lawful what he was doing
[11:33] Me: i think with enough chaotic actions, regardless of their original motiviation, you become chaotic
[11:33] David Green: Well, okay, I might agree a little with that conclusion, just not necessarily the steps you took to arrive there.
[11:34] David Green: I think it's possible that with enough chaotic actions, it can change how you feel as you realize that choatic actions can be good or useful or worthwhile. You might realize that you enjoy them. I think those qualities can help to bring about the alignment shift.
[11:35] Me: okay
[11:35] Me: i need to work
[11:35] Me: otherwise i'd continue this

Thoughts?

Comments

[ra1330.livejournal.com]

First of all, looking at the issue at the base of this question (namely "you can care about a person more than the fate of the world and still be lawful right?"), the answer in my mind for that is a definite yes. Being lawful does not imply any devotion towards the world as a whole, or its fate. In fact, I'd argue a great many LE people do feel that way (with "a person" being themselves). How you feel about other people and the fate of the world, IMNSHO, falls squarely into the realm of Good vs. Evil. A good person, under most circumstances, probably can't care more about one person than about the fate of the world. David made exactly the right call in the situation with the bad guy who threatens a loved one: An LE or even LN person could say "very well, I'll do that" if they feel it will get their friend released; an LG would have a harder time doing so (though I can see ways one can do so and still be LG, such as if one planned to betray the foe or expected to stop them later).

Lawful or Chaotic is a spectrum more than it is a trinary thing. Lawful can me "follows authority"; it can mean "supports the rule of law" it can mean "is trustworthy and forthright"; it can mean "is honorable and chivalrous"; it could mean "has a strong sense of the importance of community" or any of a number of other things. It does not have to imply all of those things, however. The leader of a guild of thieves could be lawful, for instance, despite the fact that he is almost certainly going to not follow the rule of law. Inga, you seem to feel that the last of those listed examples is requisite for lawfulness; I don't think it does.

As for the chaotic society idea, I think that's just wrong. The D&D alignment system, as written, is one of objective standards of Law/Chaos, Good/Evil. This is why you'll never find a Paladin of Gruumsh; while an Orc could follow the dictates of his society completely, and defend his society from harm, he'd still be CG at best, as Orcish society is Chaotic. It doesn't matter how he acts in that society, he is still chaotic, because he acts in accordance with the rules of a society that say "Might makes right" and "The strongest among us should lead".

Possibly more to come later

[onetruedavid.livejournal.com]

While good vs evil in the D&D cosmology is pretty well defined (how you value others relative to yourself), I've always had issue with the law / chaos distinction. Green and Inga's discussion bring out the main ambiguity - is law / chaos about your personal philosophy and how you organize your own actions (according to set codes of behavior or not), or is it about individualism vs collectivism on a societal level? These are totally orthogonal concepts - you can have a collectivist not driven by strong behavioral codes, and you can have individualists with strict codes of honor and behavior. D&D tries to lump these two concepts together into their law / chaos scale and ends up making a confusing mess of things. Your comment about how lawfulness / chaoticness is a "spectrum" only highlights the complete lack of a coherent definition of these concepts in D&D.

Splitting law / chaos into codified / impulsive and collectivist / individualist addresses all the ambiguities fairly well.

You want to screw the world to save one person? You're an individualist.
Follow authority? Support the rule of law? Have a strong sense of the importance of community? You're a collectivist.
Trustworthy and forthright? Honorable and chivalrous? That would be a sign of codified behavior.

Orc that follows the dictates of his "might makes right" society completely? He's a codified individualist.

Honestly, the D&D alignment system is an ancient system that originated from a crappy fantasy book where there were only two moral positions - that of holy paladins and that of demonic nazis. In original D&D, there was no way to be chaotic good - it was just a linear scale from LG to CE. AD&D separated it into the two G/E and L/C scales we have today, but it's still a bad system that fails to account for huge swaths of moralistic territory. If you want to seriously roleplay your character, ignore the alignment system entirely. Come up with a coherent moral system that represents his beliefs, and then after the fact map it to its closest LGNCE analogue. You're just asking for trouble if you go the other way and try to deduce coherent moral philosophies from those little letters.

[avalonxq.livejournal.com]

"If you want to seriously roleplay your character, ignore the alignment system entirely. Come up with a coherent moral system that represents his beliefs, and then after the fact map it to its closest LGNCE analogue. You're just asking for trouble if you go the other way and try to deduce coherent moral philosophies from those little letters."
I strongly agree with this idea, but I think you may not be going far enough. I propose that for many good character creation concepts, even trying to set out a coherent moral system is the wrong approach. From a fiction perspective, many good characters arrive at their set of morals not with a prechosen or even necessarily consistent moral outlook but instead by a series of analogies arrived at by past experiences.
For some of my favorite characters, what I did was simply flesh out their backstory a bit and draw some specific behavioral lines. Then, maybe I'll try to lay out a principled framework based on what I've seen, if it seems the character would be likely to do that. But I think a lot of people don't necessarily know how they'll react to many situations (unlikely in reality but very likely in a good role-play) until they find themselves there. I'm okay with my characters being the same way.

[onetruedavid.livejournal.com]

Good point. "Coherent moral system" implies it's a fully defined, static, over-and-done-with thing, which should not necessarily be the case. I hereby 100% agree with your statement.

[avalonxq.livejournal.com]

As a slightly independent point -- I've found that codified / impulsive players have a very tough time "crossing enemy lines" to play the opposite type of character. That's because the codified/impulsive distinction really is one of process. It's exceptionally difficult to alter your process.

[avalonxq.livejournal.com]

I've actually played a paladin of Gruumsh. Half-orc. It was fun.

[ra1330.livejournal.com]

It amazes me I can't actually find anything on quick inspection that would say that that was illegal (in RaW). I had always assumed Paladins, like Clerics, had to be within one step of their diety.

Ergo, amend my above statement to "That's why a Paladin of Gruumsh would be an incredibly, incredibly bizarre find." I think the rest still generally speaks for itself.

[avalonxq.livejournal.com]

The paladin in question was one of the optional characters in Gems of Ionia that your party never encountered. He was a member of a sect (which I think I actually stole from someone else) called the Reformed Church of Gruumsh -- a community of orcs and orc-descended humanoids who have decided that Gruumsh is actually a good-aligned deity rather than an evil-aligned one. In my world, they've done so by taking the raw visions and holy writings available and translating and interpreting them in a different way to get a different notion of the god.

[avalonxq.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, the reason why you can't find anything that calls it illegal is that paladins, RaW, are not officially or mechanically connected to a deity in any way. In most of my campaign settings, however, a paladin derives some genuine benefits for being a part of an established church and deity.

[qcvar.livejournal.com]

The depth of this gaming philosophical discussion far exceeds the limits of my intelligence. I'ma go back to taking care of these puppies and kittens I've strung up; ransom notes telling their owners to destroy the world have already been sent.

[spamchang.livejournal.com]

i like external laws. in the extreme case that no external set of laws fits a character's behavioral laws, then it's internal and therefore chaotic. laws assume a society by definition of the term law. words like "governing" and "authority" often describe law.

from wikipedia: Law (a loanword from Old Norse lag), in politics and jurisprudence, is a set of rules or norms of conduct which mandate, proscribe or permit specified relationships among people and organizations, provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people, and provide punishments for those who do not follow the established rules of conduct.

there i think you find support for the external view of things.

[prismakaos.livejournal.com]

this is what wikipedia has to say about alignment in DnD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

It basically upholds the tenant that lawful=respect for authority and chaotic=disrepect for authority, plus some additional things like lawful characters will uphold their word, yadda yadda yadda.

Again, I'm going to argue that you need societial rules to establish "normality" to go with either of these ethical theories.

[(Anonymous)]

You certainly do need some definition of what a "normal" amount of respect for authority is, but it doesn't necessarily need to come from in-game. I've always assumed things like that were measured from an external perspective, so my character keeps his alignment regardless of whether I play him in a very chaotic or very lawful world (where what's "normal" is shifted). If he shows more than what we, as players/GM, think is a normal amount, he's Lawful; less, he's Chaotic.

[ra1330.livejournal.com]

The above was me

[avalonxq.livejournal.com]

Well, whether the standard should be relative or absolute depends on your specific concept of planar metaphysics. If there's a whole "center of mass" thing going on with regards to spiritual attraction, the more relativist view might make sense.

[avalonxq.livejournal.com]

Yeah, no, that was a very biased reading on your part. The actual text there: "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability." Four things are listed there. One fits your definition (law as the collectivist), and THREE fit David Green's definition (law as codified behavior).
Heck, it's even worse if you read the list of things that indicate chaos: "Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility." No mention of antiestablishmentarianism in the affirmative descriptors at all. It goes on to say: "On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility." Once again, three of these four are impulsivist rather than individualist.
David Black it right this time -- D&D has taken two different alignment axes and stuck them together here.

[prismakaos.livejournal.com]

I'm not disagreeing that David Black's original statement of "Throw it all out the window, and create the collectivist-individualist & stoic-allovertheplace axes" is the way to go.

There's also the whole issue of internal versus external - how you believe you are and how others see you. I just don't think that you can be objectively L/C, I think you need to have societal norms, which means you need to be honorable as based on that system... Trustworth & reliable - sure, that's fine, we're working on the stoic access then. In terms of the chaotic descriptors, I'd argue that "freedom" is *to some extent* a mention of antiestablishmentarianism, since the logical extreme extension of it is anarchist, which implies no rules whatsoever.

I think the other problem here is the context I assumed when asked "you can care about a person more than the fate of the world and still be lawful right?" is from the DnD campaign I'm running where this became an issue. Suffice it to say in that context, no, it's not lawful because the character had already been asked to save the world and if unable to do so, was asked to step aside and be replaced by someone they could count on. The character is LN, so the question is, does such an action shift him more towards C or more towards L? I'd argue that it shifts him more towards C.

Internally, sure, you can *care* about a person more than the fate of the world and still be lawful, as long as you don't take action that puts the person above the fate of the world. As soon as you do that, there's an alignment shift. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's a L/C shift or an E/G shift...

[ra1330.livejournal.com]

1) I don't think you can suffice it to say that for context. You're leaving out the fact that the character tried to find a way to do both (with only a day's delay), and also willingly turned over the uber-Gems of Uberness when he left. In fact, one could say he did exactly what had been asked of him: as he was unable to completely do so, he turned over what was neccesary to others and would try to catch up if possible. Additionally, the people who asked didn't have any actual authority over the character: they were clerics of a totally different god, one I doubt he had ever even heard of before.

2) I assume you mean alignment shift in the way CRPGs often measure both on a scale of 0-100, as opposed to actively changing his LN to N. I'm really not sure one action, even that one, would be sufficient to do that.

3) Lawful does not mean slavishly following what people ask of you anymore than Chaotic means not doing so. Are you considering having the PCs who did follow that request who are C being shifted towards L?

4) Why can't you be lawful and put a person above the fate of the world? To quote the SRD: "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." So, a lawful neutral person could be someone who says "I have a duty [Ed: Reliable, a trait of Lawful] to my friends to help them, even if it means risking the lives of people I don't know [Ed: Neutral]." Without someone with actual authority asking otherwise, I don't see where that's not a lawful neutral decision to make.

Gonna save my discussion of External vs. Internal until I can come up with some good examples to illustrate my point.

[avalonxq.livejournal.com]

People have an even less clear understanding of the Good / Evil distinction than they do of the Law / Chaos distinction.

[ra1330.livejournal.com]

I'll bite: care to explain that claim?

[avalonxq.livejournal.com]

(BTW -- "tenant" = "resident of a building"; "tenet" = "doctrine or held belief")

[prismakaos.livejournal.com]

yeah, yeah, i know, i don't proofread what i write. :-P