Defining the alignments

The simple fact that I've gleaned from countless (seriously, like, six) debates of this nature is that the D&D alignments simply do not work in real life. They are inherently binary, whereas human conciousness is anything but. Similarly, there has never been an even half-decent set of parameters for alignment in the game that wasn't riddled with contradictions and vagueries.

Seriously, the definition of "good" that is given the PHB (roughly: kindness, empathy, and generosity) is totally different from the definition of "good" given in the Book of Exalted Deeds (basically, kicking the ever-loving crap out of evil-doers). Similarly, the Book of Vile Darkness would leave you thinking that in order to be evil you have to eat babies and turn villagers into ghouls, or, alternatively, just have a really nasty (not wicked, just gross) set of powers. Also, if you go by the "definitions" of "lawful" and "chaotic" given in the Core rules, and look at them carefully enough, you'll realize that they are functionally identical! Seriously, law and chaos are defined so broadly that they regularly overlap, and a Lawful character can always find a justification for breaking the rules, and a chaotic character for following them. Basically, it is up to the DM to actually figure out what alignments actually mean in a game, and even then they can be a righteous (no pun intended) mess.

For a lot more on the evils of alignment, see this forum post and its accompanying discussion. I don't know about you, but I found it somewhat enlightening.

At any rate, the first question I typically ask myself when I'm considering starting a new campaign is "what do I do about alignment?" As the assigned reading will tell you, the way you handle alignment will set the tone for the entire campaign. Lately, I've decided that the best way to deal with alignment is to write it out of the game. It makes encounters more interesting, characters more complex, and it rachets player paranoia up considerably. All good things, from my perspective. Of course, then you have to figure out what to do about Detect Alignment and Smite effects. I basically decided that you could get around them by having the spells detect whether the given individual meets the caster's perception of a given alignment, although even this may be too liberal if you really like to play off of moral ambiguity. The problem is, this approach doesn't really work in Planescape.

Because each Outer Plane is tied to a specific alignment, abandoning alignment is a very real change to make. Fortunately, (I think) I've devised a pretty good solution. Instead of having my players pick an alignment, I have them pick an Outer Plane. This represents the Plane they have the most connection to, and the place where they will probably go upon death. I've only just started using this, so I'm not sure it will work as well as I think, but my hope is that it will not only make my characters more interesting, but the Planes more interesting, as they have more to do with the abstract ideas the planes represent, and less to do with the arbitrary convergance of two absurd ethical and moral scales.

The problem isn't so much that the alignments make no sense - it's that Law and Chaos don't.

Then again, I sometimes feel that Neutral's the most misunderstood alignment of all. Let's get one thing straight - Neutral people do NOT commit one mildly evil act for every mildly good act.

Neutral represents three very different but interrelated concepts - at least in Planescape.

A Gygaxian (Active) Neutral comprises the first two:

A: The willingness to create a reality where the ability of all creatures to make choices that define them - to choose Good or Evil.
B: The willingness to craete a reality where these choices change only themselves and not the entire fabric of the universe.

This is what the Rilmani do. They don't screw over the Archons because they don't like Good, they screw over the Archons because if Evil and Chaos didn't exist, people choosing to do good would mean nothing [to their worldview].

On the other hand, you have passive neutrals. They use the third Neutral definition.

C: The lack of an actual, concrete devotion to a concept or activity.
_

This is where Law and Chaos break down, of course. It's easy to see how someone can be actually good - "Let's go start soup kitchens!" - or actually evil "I don't need him! Now let's break down his door and steal all his valuables, leaving him to die a life of impoverished misery!"

You can define Law as the devotion to structure and effectiveness - an ethical code that works for you. Unfortunately, this just means that Chaos is insanity. Rapidly violating your own precepts is impossible to do - you're only going to live once and take one course of actions. However, the definition of Chaos implies that the only difference from Law is that *you don't know what you are going to do* - which means you are insane.

It's not a pretty dichotomy.

How do I handle it? I go ahead and say that sure, Law is objectively good/useful. Why do you think that the Archons actually accomplish something, while the Eladrin just sort of... do Eladrin things?

So in that definition, a Lawful person's actions are those he believes are determined by outside stimuli, and a Chaotic person's actions are those that he believes are determined by inside ones?

The problem here is that "*Creating* Rules for the Sake of Rules" has never really been a lawful thing. Following them, yes, but creating - not so much. Look at the Guvners - they're the most Lawful Faction out there, and they're looking for the universal rules that work - not rules for the sake of rules that don't.

Saying that personal codes of conduct are inherently lawful is one of the most deceptive and false aspects of the Law/Chaos dichotomy. After all, aren't morals simply a set of internally held beliefs that people adhere to? Violating your internal code of conduct is at least as likely to change your moral (Good/Evil) alignment as your ethical (Law/Chaos) alignment. Also, playing by your own rules is typically seen as a chaotic trait, whereas being self-disciplined is a lawful one, even though they're the same damn thing!

Really, the system doesn't work because the system is too complex. The two alignments encompass too many things that aren't actually opposed to, or even different from, one another. If you can't describe the difference between law and chaos in just a few sentences, then chances are you are using a definition that is too complex to work.

I have found though, that definitions that are based entirely on internal motivations are always frought with contradictions, while definitions that use inernal reasoning and external actions, are always too complex and stupid to be usable, but a system based entirely on external actions can work, but only if you can get your players to stick to it. For instance, the definition I tried before I finally just gave up and dropped alignments entirely was this:

Lawful characters want to follow the rules and are psychologically capable of following the rules. Therefore, they will always uphold and live by the rules of what they deem to be a legitimate authority, even if those rules are sometimes in violation of their own personal morals (note that a Lawful good character living under an evil king may well consider that king to be illegitimate).

Neutral characters are either capable of following the laws but unwilling to, or willing to follow the laws but something in their personallity renders them incapable of it. Both types typically have some respect for the concept of Law, but find themselves unable or unwilling to restrain themselves to it.

Chaotic characters are those who are unwilling and unable to follow the law. This doesn't mean that they will constantly break the law, but when they do follow it, it won't be out of any actual respect for it. When given the opportunity to break the law to achieve ones own ends and the chaotic individual is not ruled by cowardice, the chaotic character will do it. Hell, the crime could be high treason, but as long as the chaotic individual knows he won't get caught, he will be totally willing to do it. A chaotic individual will almost never follow the law when it violates his own personal morals, and when one does it will inevitably be to save his or her own skin.

Note that Lawful individuals are more likely to become pawns to others, while chaotic individuals are more likely to break laws that are best left unbroken. It is no coincidence that Mechanus has the most ordered and technologically advanced society in the multiverse, while Limbo has a bunch of savages who run around stabbing each other with pointy sticks.

I may have a bias towards law, but then, so do you, according to your own system, the vast majority of real people are lawful. Honestly, who doesn't have a personal code of conduct that they try to adhere to rigidly? It's part of being sane. Whether you realize it or not you've effectively limited chaotic alignments to the dangerous fringes of society who are hopelessly incapable of adhering to any set of principles for very long. Basically making Chaotic Good a contradiction. How can you have a set of morals if you don't follow a set of internal guidlines? If you do immoral acts for no other reason than because you can't play by the rules, than how can you be good, or even sane? Do you see the problem here?

I think you may have misunderstood me. In my eyes, chaotic individuals are at least as capable of being Good as lawful people. In fact, because they aren't encumbered by external laws, they are far freer to follow their own personal code of ethics than lawful people. For an example, look at the case of a known killer who gets aquited on a fluke. A Lawful Good individual would be forced to except that the law isn't perfect but must be followed regardless, so he would just sit home and fume. A Neutral Good individual would also probably sit on his or her hands. A Chaotic Good person, on the other hand, may well track the killer down and apply some vigilante justice.

In modern society, chaotic people have a tendency to get arrested if they try things like that, and we have been taught to see anarchism as being simply unacceptible. In D&D though, society is much less advanced and chaotic oulooks are far, far more common. You should be careful about saying that "primitive" people, especially "Barbarians" are chaotic, however, because most tribal societies do have a rather detailed set of rules that they expect their members to live by. Instead, see chaos as a force of primitivism, because chaotic societies lack the necessary institutions and social order needed for a proper division of labor, therefore, chaotic societies cannot have anything much more complex than simple farming without a few lawful (or at least oppressive) members of the society to keep them in line.

Why can't a rulerbe lawful or chaotic, anyway? A lawful king is one who follows the conventions and social norms of the country he rules, not to mention his own decrees. A chaotic king is one who won't even follow his own rules, and may even attempt such taboo acts as marying his sister or proclaiming his horse Consul (good ol' Caligula). Chaotic rulers are almost always either born into power or swept into it by extrordinary means, that or they just go nuts. Even in generally chaotic societies where the guy with the most sticks win, you generally have to play by the established rules if you don't want to get clubbed to death.

But why must a law system be an expression of the ruler's personal code of conduct? Maybe its just rules and laws put in place to prevent insurrection.

I think that having a personal code of conduct is possible for Chaotic people. It is the external code imposed by somebody else that Chaotics don't want to follow. But I don't think it is necessary to assume all Chaotic people are unable to obey laws. Some of them just don't want to, or are only willing to obey laws that agree with their personal code, without much regard for consequences. Wheras a Neutral person has some respect for the law but refuses to obey laws that violate their personal code too much, and resists laws that are or seem arbitrary and pointless.

Personally, I think lying, cheating, and stealing would be Chaotic, not Evil. The reasons for doing those things would be moral, but the actions themselves are Chaotic. Robin Hood was a thief, but he stole things for very altruistic reasons.

I generally see the Law/Chaos dichotomy as socio-political. Law is about authority, conformity, and obediance. Chaos is about freedom and individuality. I tend to take behavior and sanity out of the picture.

A Chaotic person is just as capable of having a personal code of ethics as a Lawful person. The difference is that while a Lawful person will accept a code from an outside source (eg religious codes, political laws, or even the orders of an authority) because he believes that rules are neccessary for social stability and that questioning individual rules endangers the entire system, a Chaotic person will choose each part of her code carefully because she believes in each part wholehartedly regardless of where it came from.

If a Chaotic person is shown a book of religious or philosophical wisdom, she may decide she agrees with the ideas in it and may not; frequently she may decide that some of it has good ideas while the rest is utterly retarded. She will likely already have parts of her code that are similar to some of the parts she likes. She may decide that she should incorporate new aspects or refinements to her code based on things she never thought of before. She may even decide that some parts of her code don't make sense in light of these ne ideas, and discard them. This is generally not done lightly, but is likely to happen on occaision.

Also, just because someone has a personal code, doesn't mean that they neccessarily stick to it. Both Lawful and Chaotic people may believe that one should keep their word. Both may suffer a moment of weakness and not keep their word. The failure to keep to one's code of ethics is not inherently Lawful or Chaotic, nor is it inherently Good or Evil. The situation, the action, the intent, and most importantly the consequence of the action combined determine its allingment rating.

I should have been clearer. Behavior qualities such as impulsiveness or self-discipline are not inherently Chaotic or Lawful. Actions that are counter to or reinforce a society's or religion's rules, or that affect the freedom of another, or submission to/ rebellion against authority are definately one or the other.

Failing to abide by one's personal code is not Chaotic, but intentionally breaking an external code that the person is expected to adhere to may be.

How does that one go? "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" I believe it is. Consequences are what matter the most. If a well meaning person takes an action that results in peoples deaths, that person is responsible despite his intentions. Intentions might mitigate the circumstances, but shouldn't hold as much weight.

Ah, yes! It was Faces of Evil, wasn't it. According to my system, a LE wight is lawful because it is attempting to create a society (a society of undead wights, but a society with it as the ruler nonetheless) and is evil because it must kill all living things around it to do so. What I meant by 'harmony' is not a perfect uninterrupted perfection in everyday activities but rather a lack of negative emotions and resulting conflict. The modrons are not in perfect harmony, as they are constantly butting heads with anybody who disagrees with their laws. Their attempts to make the most coordinated society will not result in harmony (nor, therefore, ultimate Good) because they believe everybody must adhere to their laws and few outside of their species agrees with them. On the other hand, everybody in Elysium has an equal mix of caring for others (law) and caring for oneself (chaos) while still retaining a natural and easygoing peace (good). Of course, none of the planes perfectly exemplify their alignment, so contradictions will be found even on the extremes of the axes. In regards to Ysgard, you must remember that despite all the fighting and death, the combat does not stem from hatred but rather a desire to improve oneself (chaos) for various reasons, including being ready for Ragnarok amongst the Norse. The combat does swing them to the very edge of Good, as you can't really call it harmonius, but everybody there pretty much agrees that there's nothing wrong with the system, so it's more of a very large and vicious sparring match than actual war. So, that's my defense. I would somewhat disagree with your defintions of Good and Evil because for me the sacrifice of self for others is as much, if not more, Lawful than Good in my mind. It's really a matter of perception though, so I agree to disagree.

Well... uh, I guess we could duel to the death, but I really hate to get blood on this new shirt. And just for the record, archons are lawful too. Notice that pretty much all the lawful groups (Modrons, Hardheads, Formians, Archons, Baatezu, etc) are disliked by the majority of everybody else, including other lawfuls, because they only agree to one set of rules, their own. All others must comply. That creates tension.

Once again, the descriptor you're giving to CG somehow lines up with the descriptor that one website gave to Mount Celestia. The one that was more or less socialism.

If Chaos is going against athority, and Law is helping society over the individual, what do you call someone who opposes an authority because the authority is harming society? Assuming (as I do) that oppressed underclasses still count as part of society. Is it Lawful (because you care about the greater good) or is it Chaotic (because the authority at the time doesn't care about the greater good)?

The idea that society's needs trump individual needs can be Good instead of Lawful if it is your own individual needs that you sacrifice for society's needs. The decision can be made for moral rather than ethical reasons. A Good action should not be confused with Lawful action, unless we want to equate Law with Good (and I don't).

If a LG person disobeys a LE authority, are they still Lawful?

I prefer to think of it this way - a person of a Lawful alignment that is placed, inescapably, into a society that agrees with his Lawful side but disagrees with his standing on the Good/Evil axis will be forced to make a choice as to the belief of which axis he finds most important.

For instance, say a Lawful Good person is thrown into a Lawful Evil city that said person cannot escape. He would either chose to sacrifice his Lawful side by ignoring the regulations of the LE society and commit acts of Good or sacrifice his Good side by lawfully following the regulations but thereby committing Evil acts.

Beyond that, if a Lawful individual believes that a government is illegitimate, he can sometimes justify not following the law. For instance, if a usurper overthrew the good king of Carpenteria, a lawful individual (even, occasionally, one that is lawful neutral) can decide if he is going to follow this new king, or join the resistance movement. If he does the latter, he will eventually start moving toward chaotic, but it may take a while, and if the revolution is speedy enough, his alignment may not change at all.

In Ribcage? For *quite* some time. The ruler of that town does Not want to slide into Baator and so is actively incoraging good folks to drop in for a visit (so long as they don't challenge his leadership) because he wants their good influence. Though admittedly that's not what you were getting at it does indicate that there's often context to these sort of situations that would allow actions and motivations to not always synch up as you would expect.

Yeah, it's the fourth law of the planes, which happens to allow itself to exist - for every rule there's an exception and for every exception there's somebody to point it out as a rule.

Okay, so I just added that last part to be mean