Alignment & Clerics

[Hamakto]

I broke this part of the thread out from the Cleric thread to keep the first thread cleaner...

Knowing how alignment is used at 99.8% of all RPG tables, I'd say that a True Neutral cleric would be the defacto in DCC if this is the case. It's too punitive to play any other alignment.

Most groups don't understand alignment and so it goes that alignment becomes another useless descriptor on the character sheet. Like Eye Color. Or Favorite Flavor of Ice Cream.

I'd go one further and say DCC only needs three alignments -- Lawful, Unaligned and Chaotic. With a fer realz explanation of what those MEAN. Like REALLY MEAN. So that the lightbulb goes off and groups play them the way they're meant to be played.

That way, no one's ever more than two steps away. And there's none of this "diagonal" tomfoolery to worry about.

The Good-Neutral-Evil axis always bugged me anyway. Because it takes a deterministic viewpoint of morality. People are just "born evil" or whatnot. Psshaw. I call Bollocks! Why not let the PCs' actions tell the story of if they're good or evil?

The absolute deterministic silliness of the Good-Evil alignment axis is one very good reason why no one ever really used alignment, why it's not in the latest edition of the game (outside of the singular LG alignment) and why B/X did it right.

Surprisingly (and not in a bad way), I am the opposite of you. I prefer to have the Good-vs-Evil axis as the predominate axis in the game. So many stories are about vanquishing evil and the good heroes that perform the mighty dead. Not about vanquishing Chaos and the law abiding citizens that perform the deed.

I will admit that in almost most literary stories, Chaos is synonymous with evil. So the difference between Evil and Chaos in a literary sense is small.

If I had a choice for alignment in DCC I would go with the following:

Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, and Neutral. --- Five alignments

You pick the alignment that predominately expresses your character. If you are honor bound and law abiding, you would be lawful and could swing between good and evil deeds all day long. If you are good, it would not matter if you were lawful or chaotic in your application of good.

It would keep things really simple and provide a solid framework for alignment to be in the game and have some meaning.

[jmucchiello]

For me, I like the absoluteness of good vs evil and law vs chaos. So give me the 9 alignments. It makes breaking and entering and mass murder easier to swallow. I get enough moral ambiguity in real life and don't need it in my RPGs.

[smathis]

If I had a choice for alignment in DCC I would go with the following:

Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, and Neutral. --- Five alignments

You pick the alignment that predominately expresses your character. If you are honor bound and law abiding, you would be lawful and could swing between good and evil deeds all day long. If you are good, it would not matter if you were lawful or chaotic in your application of good.

It would keep things really simple and provide a solid framework for alignment to be in the game and have some meaning.

I could get behind that. I'd rather have "Neutral" be "Unaligned" or something similar. Simply because "Neutral" means so little. Ask someone to play "Neutral" and they'll play anything BUT neutral in most cases.

The reason I don't like the Good-Evil axis is because it's prescriptive.

I've had "Lawful Good" characters kill innocent NPCs. Just because "evil" was in the NPC's nature and that's what the player thought "Being Good" meant. He's evil? I kill him!

I've had more jerkwads explain, well, being jerkwads by saying "I'm Chaotic Evil" or "I'm Chaotic Neutral" than I can count. And each one of them deserved to be slapped for screwing over the other players, pulling an emergency brake on the fun and killing the session.

The Good-Evil axis has derailed dozens of games. At best, it's just silliness that's easily ignored. At worst, it's long term screwbait that puts everyone on edge.

Either situation makes alignment less cool. And I don't think I'm alone in that regard, judging by the number of games I've played in that ignore alignment or in WotC's castrating of it in 4e.

With Law vs. Chaos, I think there's more wiggle room. The alignments represent which side your on either by choice (as in the case of the Cleric of Godlawful) or by birthright (as in the case of Elves). But there's no prescriptive element that says they HAVE to behave in a certain fashion. The Cleric of Godlawful could slaughter an entire village without a session being derailed by a philosophical discussion of what it means to be "good". The Elf could fight the forces of Chaos until his dying breath. He's Chaotic because his EXISTENCE unbalances the scale -- not because he's hellbent on manifesting Tzeentch.

I prefer Law/Chaos because it gives me something to work with. I can be Lawful or Chaotic however I want. It doesn't tell me how to play my character in an archaic, vague way that's left up to wildly varying personal interpretations.

But whatevs, if DCC has all 9 alignments, look to me to use 3.

[mshensley]

I'd rather that alignments were optional altogether. They were only part of a couple of Appendix N books and most Sword & Sorcery is very morally grey. Of course, I could do without clerics altogether as well.

[Hamakto]

I'd rather that alignments were optional altogether. They were only part of a couple of Appendix N books and most Sword & Sorcery is very morally grey. Of course, I could do without clerics altogether as well.

Blasphemer!

*just kidding*

The issue is that spells and abilities would be removed from the game if there were no longer alignments. (i.e. Detect Evil becomes useless). I personally always liked alignments in DnD as a DM. Yes, it does cause some headaches and conflicts, but it provides a framework for players to RP within.

Otherwise so many players always play the same basic character. It also makes it more difficult for the DM to setup decisions for the characters to provide a good chance for that difficult RP decision (i.e. easy money or following alignment/RP).

[smathis]

The issue is that spells and abilities would be removed from the game if there were no longer alignments. (i.e. Detect Evil becomes useless). I personally always liked alignments in DnD as a DM. Yes, it does cause some headaches and conflicts, but it provides a framework for players to RP within.

Otherwise so many players always play the same basic character. It also makes it more difficult for the DM to setup decisions for the characters to provide a good chance for that difficult RP decision (i.e. easy money or following alignment/RP).

I don't think getting rid of alignments (or reducing them) negates Detect Evil. In LotFP, there are only three alignments (Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic). Yet there's a Protection From Evil spell. It's actually easier to figure out what that protects against without the full 9 alignments.

"Ha! You didn't detect the Centaur because he was NEUTRAL. Who cares if he planned to murder you all?!"

And I've found that most roleplayers still tend to play the same general type of character regardless of alignment being in, or out, of the game. Unless we're talking about random alignments. Most cases a player just picks whatever they pick (Chaotic Neutral, I'm looking at you!) and then branch out once in a while with a Lawful Good or something.

Sheesh, the more I think about it, the more disheartened I am about alignments altogether. How pointless. It's like Marcel Proust got to add his favorite house rule to D&D.

[mythfish]

"Ha! You didn't detect the Centaur because he was NEUTRAL. Who cares if he planned to murder you all?!"

That's why I've always preferred the philosophy that a character's actions determine his alignment, rather than his alignment determining his actions.

[GnomeBoy]

"Ha! You didn't detect the Centaur because he was NEUTRAL. Who cares if he planned to murder you all?!"

That's why I've always preferred the philosophy that a character's actions determine his alignment, rather than his alignment determining his actions.

Well, yes.

But if you know what you're about then you can choose an alignment, give your DM a break as to knowing what you're generally going to be like at the table, and stick with it.

Alignment can guide roleplaying.

But if you're constantly acting against your stated alignment, well, that's when you need to use an eraser and write in the more correct one...


(Do other people still use erasers? or a delete key?)

[smathis]

That's why I've always preferred the philosophy that a character's actions determine his alignment, rather than his alignment determining his actions.

That's how I prefer to determine whether a character is good or evil.

[JRR]

I've had "Lawful Good" characters kill innocent NPCs. Just because "evil" was in the NPC's nature and that's what the player thought "Being Good" meant. He's evil? I kill him!

I've had more jerkwads explain, well, being jerkwads by saying "I'm Chaotic Evil" or "I'm Chaotic Neutral" than I can count. And each one of them deserved to be slapped for screwing over the other players, pulling an emergency brake on the fun and killing the session.

That's a player problem, not an alignment problem.

The chaotic lawful neutral axis does not appeal to me. I like to play chaotic good characters. The kind who will risk their lives to save a peasant, yet will tell the town sherrif where he can stick his new tax laws. Without the good/evil portion, I'd be considered evil for my chaotic free spirit, even though I'd be the first to volunteer to go after the slave lords or infiltrate Acererak's tomb.

[smathis]

That's a player problem, not an alignment problem.

The chaotic lawful neutral axis does not appeal to me. I like to play chaotic good characters. The kind who will risk their lives to save a peasant, yet will tell the town sherrif where he can stick his new tax laws. Without the good/evil portion, I'd be considered evil for my chaotic free spirit, even though I'd be the first to volunteer to go after the slave lords or infiltrate Acererak's tomb.

I agree that it's a player problem. But the alignment system empowers some players to behave that way.

What about the Lawful-Chaotic axis prevents you from playing a "Chaotic Good" character?

A character can be "Chaotic" by birthright or nature, yet fight those forces his entire life. A Wizard, by default, is Chaotic. As is an Elf. That doesn't mean they're constantly attempting to unbend the world.

Familiar with Buffy? Take two sorcerers -- Giles and Ethan Raine. Both are Chaotic. One fights against the forces of Chaos. The other doesn't.

The problem with the Good-Evil axis is it assumes determinism and players accept that. Your character is Good-Evil by nature and there's no undoing that. Otherwise, why didn't you just start out with the alignment you wanted? It makes sense in a very Calvinist sort of way or if everyone hops onboard with Immanuel Kant. But that's simply not how it's played.

Alignment is such a mess, IMO. It's become self-referential and practically useless because of that.

First example, "Chaotic Good" does not mean "free-wheeling". Maybe it does in "D&D World". But not in Appendix N. "Chaotic" means that you're aligned with Chaos. You're an Elf, Wizard, Warlock, Faerie, Half-Demon, Sorcerer or someone born of a sorcerous nature or with that in your blood.

"Good" means.... well... who really knows what it means?

It could mean you put the interests of the group above your own. It could mean you believe in protecting the little guy -- group be damned. It could mean you do whatever you want and go to church once a week. Or it could mean you put on scary pajamas and beat the stuffing out of petty criminals a couple nights a week. Or it could mean you brush your teeth and get to bed by 10 p.m. every night.

Good means whatever you think it means. Which differs from what I think it means. And what the guy over there playing the female Dwarf with an 8 Charisma thinks it means.

And therein lies the problem.

What happens when your "Chaotic Good" character sees something register on the Evilometer for a 9-year-old boy? And, being good, he chops that little boy into pieces? Even though the boy was "evil" because, well, he was born "Lawful Evil". And even though that is more a register of the potential of that child to be evil or do evil in its life. Yet the child had not had the opportunity to do evil (yet, we'd assume).

But that's a totally evil act. So what makes that "Chaotic Good" character good exactly? Is murder not an evil act anymore?

And yet I've seen this happen at least a dozen times in more groups than you'd likely believe.

I'm here to play D&D, not "Minority Report". Don't tell me you're good or evil. Show me.

[Hamakto]

A character can be "Chaotic" by birthright or nature, yet fight those forces his entire life. A Wizard, by default, is Chaotic. As is an Elf. That doesn't mean they're constantly attempting to unbend the world.

--snip -- not to change what you are posting, but to make it shorter.

I'm here to play D&D, not "Minority Report". Don't tell me you're good or evil. Show me.

Those two statements are what cause big issues with alignment. Most creatures are not born with an alignment. They are born neutral and learn from their environment Law/Chaos/Good/Evil.

In some societies owning slaves is legal. The people can even be of good alignment if they treat them well... or evil if they abuse them. It all depends on how they are raised. Now an Orc is evil because of their environment and how they are raised. You could even argue that they are naturally violent. But that does not guarantee evil. It may not make them welcome in civilized society. And by getting excluded time and time again (with prejudice with how they look), they would turn further bitter and violet and eventually turn evil again as they seek vengeance.

The problem with Lawful/Chaos only alignment is at that point, you should probably not have bother to have an alignment. It does not adequately describe a character for various spell effects. Plus, most gamers like playing good characters. They like being heroic and defeating evil. Many gamers will curtail their more violent impulses (mass murder, etc) to keep the good tag on their character sheet.

In a way, it is something that exists to provide a tool for the DM to setup RP scenarios and hope that characters make a decision down a certain path. One of the coolest things about RPing is to have a situation presented to your character where they need to make a moral/ethical decision. Alignment provides an additional framework for that decision. They do not have to follow it, but they could have an alignment change result from decisions that are made. And with the new healing system for DCC RPG, it could have more than passing consequence.

Where am I going with this? Without alignment the party really descends into the realm of just being money grabbing mercs with no morals... no ethics... and out for themselves.

[smathis]

Those two statements are what cause big issues with alignment. Most creatures are not born with an alignment. They are born neutral and learn from their environment Law/Chaos/Good/Evil.

Elves are not born Neutral. They are born Chaotic. Those of sorcerous lineage are not born neutral either. There's no such thing as a "Neutral" or "Lawful" Elf. At least not until D&D REALLY started watering down alignment into the swill-colored nothingness it is today.

The Appendix N application of Law vs. Chaos fits much closer to how Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay handles it than how the typical D&D player thinks of it. D&D never did a good job of explaining Law vs. Chaos. Therefore, most D&D players have no clue at all what alignment means.

They think it stands for some sort of moral code or roleplaying guide to actions. Like they can chart it out to say "Superman" is "Lawful Good" and Batman is "Chaotic Good" and Wolverine is "Chaotic Neutral". Um... No. Not even close.

Superman and Wolverine are Chaotic by their very existence. Unless Superman is the tool of some divine power imposing order upon the world -- which it's fairly clear he's not. He gets his powers from the Sun. Not from the Sun GOD. Wolverine is a mutant. 'Nuff said.

Batman? Probably Neutral (which I prefer to think of as Unaligned just because True Neutral is impossible for most people to grasp).

In some societies owning slaves is legal. The people can even be of good alignment if they treat them well... or evil if they abuse them. It all depends on how they are raised. Now an Orc is evil because of their environment and how they are raised. You could even argue that they are naturally violent. But that does not guarantee evil. It may not make them welcome in civilized society. And by getting excluded time and time again (with prejudice with how they look), they would turn further bitter and violet and eventually turn evil again as they seek vengeance.

This would suggest that alignment in D&D is a fluid designation. Such that a character can shift from Good-Evil in the span of a single adventure and multiple times even in the same level. That this alignment shifting is commonplace. Abuse slave, shift to Evil alignment. Treat slaves well, make amends -- shift to Good alignment.

That doesn't hold with my experience of alignment in D&D. And it doesn't hold with the Law/Chaos represented in Appendix N. Conan never shifts away from what I would argue is pretty hardline Neutral. Elric is pretty much just Chaotic.

The problem with Lawful/Chaos only alignment is at that point, you should probably not have bother to have an alignment. It does not adequately describe a character for various spell effects.

I disagree. LotFP works fine without the Good/Evil distinction. As did B/X. There is a lack of understanding of WHAT Lawful and Chaotic MEANS among D&D gamers. Your statement illustrates that point.

For LotFP, "Detect Evil" or "Protection against Evil" becomes contextual. As it should be. It would protect you against a Paladin trying to slay you as surely as it would protect you against a horde of Zombies trying to eat your brain. If the target has "evil intent against you or your allies" (in some cases) that's considered "evil" from where you're standing. It makes the distinction between Good and Evil much less of a caricature and much more palpable, IMO.

As a fun exercise, take a hardline Lawful Good Witch Hunter. He's good. He believes he's good. But it's an interpretation of good that modern thinkers would find appalling. But by D&D standards, he's Good without reproach. He only slays the corrupted, never the innocent. Have him try to cleanse the world of the party's Magic User. Witches are evil. Witchery is a sign of evil. It must be expunged. Not at all a whacky moral notion in the genre.

See how 3e Detect Evil and Protection against Evil works against him. In short, it doesn't.

Or even the prototypical Chaotic Neutral Barbarian whose superstitious beliefs compel him to slay all spellcasters. I've been on the receiving end of this one. It's not fun. And derails the game.

Alignment in D&D is a mess.

Plus, most gamers like playing good characters. They like being heroic and defeating evil. Many gamers will curtail their more violent impulses (mass murder, etc) to keep the good tag on their character sheet.

Um... I disagree. Most players will find creative ways to rationalize inhuman behavior to keep their alignment. But will not curtail their actions. They're humans. That's what humans do. Overflowing penitentiaries and a 50% divorce rate prove that case.

Alignment, used in the way described, is a barrier to play. That's why it's been marginalized more and more the farther the editions have moved along.

What does Alignment mean mechanically in 4e? Nothing. Why is that? Because the designers of 4e recognized it was pointless (at best) and a barrier (at worst). They understand the Law/Chaos thing only insofar as the prototypical D&D player might -- which is to say not at all.

Where am I going with this? Without alignment the party really descends into the realm of just being money grabbing mercs with no morals... no ethics... and out for themselves.

I disagree strongly on a number of levels. But most of all here...

You’re no hero.

You’re a reaver, a cutpurse, a heathen-slayer, a tight-lipped warlock guarding long-dead secrets. You seek gold and glory, winning it with sword and spell, caked in the blood and filth of the weak, the dark, the demons, and the vanquished. There are treasures to be won deep underneath, and you shall have them.

Return to the glory days of fantasy with the Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game. Adventure as 1974 intended you to, with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery. Fast play, cryptic secrets, and a mysterious past await you: turn the page…

It says right there: "You’re no hero". It backs it up with "You’re a reaver, a cutpurse, a heathen-slayer, a tight-lipped warlock guarding long-dead secrets".

How does Good exist in that meme? At best, every one of those is Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. So what's the point of HAVING a Good-Evil axis? Is it to designate who's wearing Black and Navy Blue?

Simply put, if you're taking me back to "the glory days of fantasy", you're taking me back to OD&D. Says it right there on the label -- 1974.

There was no Chaotic Good in OD&D. Only Chaotic.

And that's just fine with me.

[mshensley]

There was no Chaotic Good in OD&D. Only Chaotic.

Where almost everyone read as Lawful = Good and Chaotic = Evil. Just dump the whole bit into the dump along with alignment language. It's bloody useless. How about instead of writing Chaotic on your character sheet, you just write Hippy Elf? That's a whole lot more descriptive and useful a term for roleplaying purposes. IMHO, of course.

[smathis]

Where almost everyone read as Lawful = Good and Chaotic = Evil. Just dump the whole bit into the dump along with alignment language. It's bloody useless. How about instead of writing Chaotic on your character sheet, you just write Hippy Elf? That's a whole lot more descriptive and useful a term for roleplaying purposes. IMHO, of course.

And that distinction (Lawful=Good and Chaotic=Evil) is where D&D screwed up, IMO. To put a band-aid on that screw-up, they introduced Good & Evil in AD&D -- mainly as a signpost to point out that Lawful != Good and Chaotic != Evil. Another screwup.

It's only gotten worse as time has worn on.

Having read a decent portion of Appendix N, I get Lawful vs. Chaotic. I get it. I don't mind it because it makes sense to me. I see how it works in the stories. And WFRP, in my opinion, pretty close to nails it.

But if DCC is going with the banal and bog-standard trope of "D&D Alignment" (which reflects Appendix N alignment in-name-only), then I agree... the whole thing might as well be scrapped.

May as well use Autobot and Decepticon as alignments. Or flavors of ice cream. Much like "Hippy Elf" they mean more to roleplayers than artificial, self-referential distinctions of Law/Chaos or overly simplistic and needlessly deterministic descriptors of Good/Evil ever will.

At least flavor of ice cream would get used in game to reference what treat my Rocky-Road Halfling would get after a hard day's delve.

[mshensley]

That settles it, my next character will have an alignment of "decepticon".

[Professor P]

Smathis,

Overall, I think I agree with the points you make. But would you mind defining Law and Chaos as you understand it from Appendix N? I've only read Three Hearts Three Lions, and it does seem that Law = humanity and goodness while chaos = evil.

[fireinthedust]

They think it stands for some sort of moral code or roleplaying guide to actions. Like they can chart it out to say "Superman" is "Lawful Good" and Batman is "Chaotic Good" and Wolverine is "Chaotic Neutral". Um... No. Not even close.

Superman and Wolverine are Chaotic by their very existence. Unless Superman is the tool of some divine power imposing order upon the world -- which it's fairly clear he's not. He gets his powers from the Sun. Not from the Sun GOD. Wolverine is a mutant. 'Nuff said.

Batman? Probably Neutral (which I prefer to think of as Unaligned just because True Neutral is impossible for most people to grasp).

[/quote]

Whooooa! What?! Really?! Unaligned? Ie: Batman, the Dark Knight, has chosen not to make a choice between Good and Evil? The Caped Crusader is morally ambiguous? The guy who refuses to kill the Joker, who's murdered his sidekick and crippled his best friend's daughter, along with literally hundreds of other deaths, because killing the Joker would make him like the Joker. That guy. Jim Gordon's pal. The financier of the Justice League. Batman is Unaligned, just like, say, a sword & sorcery mercenary who just fights for gold but might save a kitten if hired to do so?

Okay, Batman is clearly GOOD ALIGNED and mostly likely LAWFUL GOOD, or possibly NEUTRAL GOOD. He has a code of ethics, and he works alongside Gordon in a city whose government institutions are corrupt. He ties people up and sends them to jail. He doesn't take them out back and kill them. His secret identity owns most of Gotham, so he has a vested financial interest in the status quo.
I mean, maybe if Frank Miller is writing him, sure, but frankly Frank Miller could write Disney princesses stories and make them morally ambiguous (about a Gulf War vet named Alladin who's for some reason also a ninja/samurai, and his ninja/samurai prostitute friends).

Superman is clearly Lawful Good. I'm baffled that it isn't clear here, given the movie (Christopher Reeves) and Challenge of the Super Friends.

Wolverine, like real Wolverine, not this modern nonsense, is Chaotic Good: he is an outsider, a drifter, who can't control his rage and who can't work with a team (ie: following orders); however, he's willing to trek for days in the wilderness to put down a bear because it's a maneater, cause he's the best there is at what he does, but what he does isn't nice (see Wolverine mini-series, by Miller and Claremont).

Chaotic Neutral is for, say, Yukio or other wildcards who don't choose sides. Deadpool is classic Chaotic Neutral. Catwoman when she's a thief is CN, though eventually she's morphed into more Chaotic Good due to popularity (and did it well, frankly, not like most watered down former-villains, where their past misdeeds get excused cause they're awesome retroactively).



However, getting outside that model, I'd argue that alignment isn't something needed for my tastes. I use them mostly in magical terms: Outsiders are good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or other designations. Clerics are as well, by association. Maybe through faith we become good (or evil), who knows?

I've been reading up on Buddhism, and the idea of the non-self as ideal is totally different from what I'm used to from my Western/Christian cultural heritage. It's interesting, but the whole model for everything is sooo... different. That's all I'll say, as I don't want to get into a debate about ACTUAL REAL WORLD RELIGIONS/politics/race/culture, etc. However, I point to it as an example of what I'm about to say:

RPGers think like modern human beings in a western context. We know that. Our assumptions about what good and evil are rule what we say about them, how we live them out. All clerics are supposed to be chaste, wise, good people who are healers, but this is a very Western notion in its current form in RPGs.

I've been away working on a game revolving around Avatar: the last Airbender. I've gone beyond it, and I'd like to read about Confucianism, chinese medicine, gong-fu, more budism (zen, Musashi's Five Rings), and more. However, the assumptions I've been coming across are NOT Western monotheistic ideas.

Greek mythology, for example, is not always pretty because their morality was different from our modern morality. Zeus impregnates all manner of creature, especially damsels and other men's wives. Blood sacrifices, laws of hospitality, all sorts of stuff that we don't have now. Heck, look at what happened to Prometheus for *helping* mankind with fire and the ability to heal ourselves. It's different.

Oh well.


Also: I like 4e alignment. And I think the designers understand Law vs. Chaos better than you may think. At least, they did until there were good creatures coming from the Primordial Chaos (and a million different power sources not mentioned in the first book; oh well).

[Black Dougal]

I have to agree with fireinthedust about the alignments of comic book characters.

Now for my $0.02 US...

From the parts of Appendix N which I have read over several years (the Amber novels, Tolkien, one Conan story, several Fafhrd & Grey Mouser stories, some of Lovecraft, St. Clair's "The Shadow People", and I just finished Anderson's "The High Crusade") I haven't gotten the idea that the Chaotic alignment means "born of Chaos" or "comes from Chaos". I have been left with the impression of the Chaotic alignment being in opposition to order. In D&D terms order would be the Lawful alignment.

I realize that I haven't read all of Appendix N, or even as much as many people on this board have. Be that as it may, I think the nine alignments work as a model for Appendix N style roleplay. I will agree that they can be played thoughtlessly or with a lack of understanding, but that is true of any part of the game.

Also, take a look at Appendix III of the 1st Ed. PHB. It is the "Character Alignment Graph." It shows the nine alignments laid out within a square field with certain descriptive words in each corner. The graph suggests to me that there is what I will call "wiggle room" in each alignment. Wiggle room means that there will be variations in play style possible within those alignments. The Rules Cyclopedia states: "An alignment is a code of behavior or way of life which guides the actions and thoughts of characters and monsters." Alignments don't define a character they inform the actions of a character. They are not hard and fast rules. They are a guideline. As long as most (80-90%) of a character's actions are within the alignment and they are taking few or no actions which are of opposed alignments, then I believe they are playing their alignment correctly. Every human being occasionally acts in ways that are out of character for their normal behavior. It is when those out-of-norm behaviors become the norm that problems arise. The 1st Ed. PHB states that both voluntary and involuntary alignment changes are possible, but not common.

[smathis]

Smathis,

Overall, I think I agree with the points you make. But would you mind defining Law and Chaos as you understand it from Appendix N? I've only read Three Hearts Three Lions, and it does seem that Law = humanity and goodness while chaos = evil.

My position is more influenced by Moorcock's take on Law and Chaos. In the interest of keeping everyone on the same page and not shooting myself in the foot by communicating something poorly, there's a good wikipedia article on the topic. Here's some of the highlights...

On the relationship between Law & Chaos...
"Law and Chaos are the dominant metaphysical forces in the fantasy stories of Michael Moorcock, which he derived from Poul Anderson (especially his Three Hearts and Three Lions). Law and Chaos are in constant struggle, but they are kept in check by the Cosmic Balance, an even more powerful force for neutrality."

Regarding Law...
"Law provides order, structure, and justice to the world. Without it, nothing material could exist. Law appears friendly to life, but a realm controlled by Law alone becomes just as stagnant as one overrun by Chaos. In "To Rescue Tanelorn", the Realm of Law is a barren wasteland; without wrongs to right and injustice to correct, Law becomes meaningless. In The Dreamthief’s Daughter, Law goes mad and tries to overrun the world. Ordinarily, however, Law is benevolent and beautiful in its perfect regularity."

Regarding Chaos...
"Chaos (disorder, entropy) expresses the principle of possibility unfettered by rules. In general, magic and sorcery draw on the powers of Chaos because they break the laws of nature. The effects of Chaos can be beautiful, but left unchecked, they become too disruptive for life.

Pure Chaos stuff manifests in Stormbringer and "The Dream of Earl Aubec". It is swirling, constantly changing, multicolored matter with the power to melt and twist anything with which it comes in contact, including living flesh. Mortals find the sight of pure Chaos disturbing. Ironically, a realm controlled by Chaos becomes stagnant: the state of constant change lacks meaning, and eventually all possibilities are exhausted. Corum encounters a similar state of nature when he visits the realm of Xiombarg in The Queen of the Swords. In Stormbringer, when Chaos takes over much of the world, Elric and his companions observe that the sun is motionless and time seems to stand still."

That's why I say "Chaotic" doesn't equate to "likes to do his own thing". Chaos is corrupting. And I'd also posit that it's a struggle that 80% of the population is completely unaware of. Or at least not active towards one side or the other, outside of slaying a beastie here or there. That's why I prefer "Unaligned" to "Neutral". Neutral would be almost impossible to play. What would you do? Sit out a couple of sessions because the defeat of the dragon in the last session tipped the scale to balance? Or push the party's Cleric into a lava pit because he's grown too strong and threatens to imbalance the scale towards Law?

And I also feel that there's a such thing as being Actively and Passively Chaotic or Lawful. I think that's something that Gygax was trying to hit on by adding Good-Evil to the equation. A sorcerer who's trying to summon Orcus is Actively Chaotic. It's their choice to corrupt themselves and they're taking action to imbalance the world towards Corruption. An Elf who's just an Elf is Passively Chaotic. The Elf's existence tips the scale towards Chaos because he is a creature of Chaos. Not because he's out summoning demons every full moon. The Elf can also do his bit to fight Chaos, even though he is Chaotic. That doesn't change whether he's Chaotic or not.

The way I see it, the laws and caprices of Man have nothing to do with the struggle between Law and Chaos. If I run a stop sign because I'm in a hurry, the Grey Lords aren't going to show up and smite me. And yet that's exactly how D&D has interpreted it. Hence we discuss how Superman can be "Lawful" and Wolverine "Neutral" or "Chaotic". Both break the "laws" set forth by the Gods of Law to give structure to the universe. Therefore, they must both be Chaotic. How they feel about puppies and traffic lights and shoplifters has nothing to do with that distinction.

Now, if you completely alter Superman's mythology to make him a creation of the Gods of Law to enforce their will... well... then he's Lawful.

[smathis]

Whooooa! What?! Really?! Unaligned? Ie: Batman, the Dark Knight, has chosen not to make a choice between Good and Evil? The Caped Crusader is morally ambiguous? The guy who refuses to kill the Joker, who's murdered his sidekick and crippled his best friend's daughter, along with literally hundreds of other deaths, because killing the Joker would make him like the Joker. That guy. Jim Gordon's pal. The financier of the Justice League. Batman is Unaligned, just like, say, a sword & sorcery mercenary who just fights for gold but might save a kitten if hired to do so?

A lack of clarity on my part. I was talking about the Law-Chaos axis. Poorly stated. My statement was more that "Batman isn't Chaotic, he's Neutral!" My bad. I think you nailed it with Neutral Good. If I were throwing darts at the 9-Alignment Wheel, that's where I'd aim for Batman.

I mean, maybe if Frank Miller is writing him, sure, but frankly Frank Miller could write Disney princesses stories and make them morally ambiguous (about a Gulf War vet named Alladin who's for some reason also a ninja/samurai, and his ninja/samurai prostitute friends).

LOL. That just made my morning. Ha! That would be awesome.

Superman is clearly Lawful Good. I'm baffled that it isn't clear here, given the movie (Christopher Reeves) and Challenge of the Super Friends.

By what I would propose is the errant D&Dism of Alignment, yes, Superman is Lawful Good. By my understanding of alignment, Law and Chaos set forth in my previous post, Superman is Chaotic.

I'm not wanting this to derail into an alignments for super-heroes thread. So I'll just leave it there.

However, getting outside that model, I'd argue that alignment isn't something needed for my tastes. I use them mostly in magical terms: Outsiders are good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or other designations. Clerics are as well, by association. Maybe through faith we become good (or evil), who knows?

I suppose it's Moorcockian Alignment? I prefer that because it gets out of the way, IMO, yet still gives an element that a group can bring into play as they see fit. 3 out of 5 characters will be Unaligned. And of the ones that aren't? Well, half of them will be passive in their association.

No B.S. around the table of "Your character wouldn't do that because he's Lawful!" I'm saying to Hades with that. I know what my character would do. I don't need some contrived moral code to do that on my behalf.

I've been reading up on Buddhism, and the idea of the non-self as ideal is totally different from what I'm used to from my Western/Christian cultural heritage. It's interesting, but the whole model for everything is sooo... different. That's all I'll say, as I don't want to get into a debate about ACTUAL REAL WORLD RELIGIONS/politics/race/culture, etc. However, I point to it as an example of what I'm about to say:

RPGers think like modern human beings in a western context. We know that. Our assumptions about what good and evil are rule what we say about them, how we live them out. All clerics are supposed to be chaste, wise, good people who are healers, but this is a very Western notion in its current form in RPGs.

This is what I was talking about when I was saying that defining a character as "Good" or "Evil" out of the gate is silly. Not to get all post-modern but I could create a "good" Mongol Fighting Man that would make the traditional Western latte drinker go "WTF?" while making a strong case that I never break my alignment.

And I don't think stuff like that is useful at a game table. Alignment shouldn't be a justification for being a jerk. Yet I've seen that very thing happen more often than I'd care to recall.

I've been away working on a game revolving around Avatar: the last Airbender. I've gone beyond it, and I'd like to read about Confucianism, chinese medicine, gong-fu, more budism (zen, Musashi's Five Rings), and more. However, the assumptions I've been coming across are NOT Western monotheistic ideas.

Cool. I was an Asian Studies major, so I dig it.

Also: I like 4e alignment. And I think the designers understand Law vs. Chaos better than you may think. At least, they did until there were good creatures coming from the Primordial Chaos (and a million different power sources not mentioned in the first book; oh well).

Looking back over some of it, I think you're correct. The designers of 4e tried to bring it back to its roots. The Primordial Chaos is a good parallel to Chaos and they brought in the Astral Sea for the Lawful end of it. And really, the only characters that are in the thick of that struggle are at the extreme ends of the spectrum (Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil) -- with the rest of the lot being Good, "Evil" or Unaligned, basically three shades of Unaligned.

So, you're right. I was unfair in my criticism of them. They do get it. And they did a decent job of trying to swing D&D back to that.

[smathis]

As long as most (80-90%) of a character's actions are within the alignment and they are taking few or no actions which are of opposed alignments, then I believe they are playing their alignment correctly. Every human being occasionally acts in ways that are out of character for their normal behavior. It is when those out-of-norm behaviors become the norm that problems arise. The 1st Ed. PHB states that both voluntary and involuntary alignment changes are possible, but not common.

I'd say two things.

First, if alignment is prescribing 80-90% of my actions, it's no longer a guideline. 10% isn't much wiggle room, unless you're a halfling. If you think it is, make sure you're sitting next to me on my next flight. We can talk shop and I'll have plenty of room to stretch out.

Second, in a game where "You’re no hero" and you're covered in the blood of the "weak" and "vanquished", I'd posit that Alignment -- in the traditional D&D sense -- ceases to be needed at all.

No one would be Lawful (unless we adopt Moorcock/WFRP's interpretation of the term). And no one would be Good.

Good people are heroes. And they protect the weak.

So why have the distinction at all if we know that 5 out of 9 alignments are ALREADY unnecessary?

[Black Dougal]

I'd say two things.

First, if alignment is prescribing 80-90% of my actions, it's no longer a guideline. 10% isn't much wiggle room, unless you're a halfling. If you think it is, make sure you're sitting next to me on my next flight. We can talk shop and I'll have plenty of room to stretch out.

10% more leg room on an airline may not be much room. However, a 10% change in the stock market would be a huge change. It is a matter of degrees and scale. Because of that, I see your airline example as an apples-to-oranges comparison. Think of the number of decisions which you make in an average day.

Second, in a game where "You’re no hero" and you're covered in the blood of the "weak" and "vanquished", I'd posit that Alignment -- in the traditional D&D sense -- ceases to be needed at all.

No one would be Lawful (unless we adopt Moorcock/WFRP's interpretation of the term). And no one would be Good.

Good people are heroes. And they protect the weak.

So why have the distinction at all if we know that 5 out of 9 alignments are ALREADY unnecessary?

Lawful Good is not synonymous with hero. I will give an example. Please tell me what you think. In a game I was playing a Paladin of Iomedae (a Lawful Good goddess) in a Pathfinder game. In the game we happened upon a village of Orcs. Since Orcish society breeds only Evil alignments, my character slaughtered the entire village. First question: Was that an evil act or a good one? After all, my character did remove a source of evil from the world. Second question: Was that a heroic act? After all, it was an act of genocide.

[Hamakto]

Lawful Good is not synonymous with hero. I will give an example. Please tell me what you think. In a game I was playing a Paladin of Iomedae (a Lawful Good goddess) in a Pathfinder game. In the game we happened upon a village of Orcs. Since Orcish society breeds only Evil alignments, my character slaughtered the entire village. First question: Was that an evil act or a good one? After all, my character did remove a source of evil from the world. Second question: Was that a heroic act? After all, it was an act of genocide.

It would depend on the viewpoints of your goddess. If you goddess is associated with eradicating evil in any and all forms, then you are fine.

Did the village attack someone / something else that you are protecting? If so, then you are fine.

History of the village in the area? If known, that could make the difference.

Did you verify they were evil? Would your goddess want you to verify first?

It would honestly come down to the tenets of your religion to be honest. Did you follow the rules?

[Black Dougal]

Lawful Good is not synonymous with hero. I will give an example. Please tell me what you think. In a game I was playing a Paladin of Iomedae (a Lawful Good goddess) in a Pathfinder game. In the game we happened upon a village of Orcs. Since Orcish society breeds only Evil alignments, my character slaughtered the entire village. First question: Was that an evil act or a good one? After all, my character did remove a source of evil from the world. Second question: Was that a heroic act? After all, it was an act of genocide.

It would depend on the viewpoints of your goddess. If you goddess is associated with eradicating evil in any and all forms, then you are fine.

Did the village attack someone / something else that you are protecting? If so, then you are fine.

History of the village in the area? If known, that could make the difference.

Did you verify they were evil? Would your goddess want you to verify first?

It would honestly come down to the tenets of your religion to be honest. Did you follow the rules?

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Iomedae
"The Church of Iomedae is assertive and vigilant in rooting out evil."

EDIT:
An orc raiding party had attacked a nearby village recently.