Lawful Good: return the child to the mother because that's what the law decided, it will be better for the child to be in a lawful stable situation anyway.
Neutral Good: discuss with the child to ask him what he prefers and take your decision based on this.
Chaotic Good: Let the father keep the child and help them get out of reach of the law, that is the path to happiness, not to be constrained by rules put in place by someone else.
This example is useless if we don't know why the child was kidnapped, why the mother was give custody in the first place, et cetera. Is the mother abusive but bribed the judge to gain custody? Did the father kidnap the child sell it into slavery to be able to pay of his debts that was the cause of him losing custody in the first place?
I feel like the chaotic good character is just as likely if not more likely than neutral to ask the child and work off that, because the law may not know what is best for the child and the parents clearly can't find some kind of agreement.
The neutral character would discuss the pros and cons of each and help the child come to a decision between the two. The chaotic character would bluntly ask and work with the child's first statement, perhaps even considering if the child said they wanted to run off and join the circus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
***This signature says something else when you aren't looking at it***
Lawful Good: return the child to the mother because that's what the law decided, it will be better for the child to be in a lawful stable situation anyway.
Neutral Good: discuss with the child to ask him what he prefers and take your decision based on this.
Chaotic Good: Let the father keep the child and help them get out of reach of the law, that is the path to happiness, not to be constrained by rules put in place by someone else.
This example is useless if we don't know why the child was kidnapped, why the mother was give custody in the first place, et cetera. Is the mother abusive but bribed the judge to gain custody? Did the father kidnap the child sell it into slavery to be able to pay of his debts that was the cause of him losing custody in the first place?
Is any of that actually important to the example? The framing scenario (which you clipped out) is only about Law vs Chaotic and removes Good v. Evil from the equation. Lyxen stated that neither parent, the child, the judge, or the PC was evil (eliminating both your complications), the father was less well established in life, the mother had custody, and the child might be happier with the father.
Adding Good and Evil to the mix might change the actions of the character, but this is a situation to address the differences in good creatures who are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. The mother being abusive and bribing a judge would introduce evil into the situation, as would the father's motivations regarding slavery. Sure, those pieces of info might change the actions of a good creature in response.
Are lawful good characters good by the standards of their societies (moral relativism) e.g. If a lawful good character were in a town where doing evil is a law and considered good, then would they do evil? If they followed the law then they would be lawful evil; on the other hand if they didn't follow the law, they would be the would be chaotic good.
It sounds like the lawful alignment reflects social conformity and the chaotic alignment reflects psychopathy or sociopathy. I think both might have behavioral issues; your either crazy (chaotic) or your subservient (lawful). So would neutral be more stable?
Given all of these, both the person who says "I don't care about society or order, I'll just do what I want regardless of my effect on them" and the one who says "I can see the benefits and downsides of society and order, so I am perfectly happy whether my actions aid or hinder society" are Neutral.
I think the lawful-chaotic axis is too broad and not specific enough, it doesn't take into account a character's outlook on different cultures and societies: what if you fully abide by the authorities and customs of one civilization, but you completely disobey the laws of another? Or what if you only follow some of the laws? What if you only followed the law because you benefited from it; and the moment it stopped, you disregarded it? Finally, what system of laws is a character's lawful-chaotic alignment based off of? Are they from a lawful evil society, a lawful good society or a pack of wild animals with no rulebook to be found?
Which laws do they follow: are they selective, do they follow all or none of them? Are they more or less likely to follow a law when it's from a particular culture or society?
Which authorities do they acknowledge: can they be any kind of authority, even self-appointed ones?
Why do they follow laws? Zealousness, some personal gain, etc.?
Is their a standard that dictates a character's Lawful-Chaotic alignment: Is it based on the laws of a particular society, culture or some socioculturally indiscriminate or unspecified set of rules.
But to illustrate your first question, let's say that a PC has recovered a child who was kidnapped by his father because the mother had been awarded the guardianship after a separation. No one is evil here, and the child might actually be happier with his father although he is not as well established in life:
Lawful Good: return the child to the mother because that's what the law decided, it will be better for the child to be in a lawful stable situation anyway.
Neutral Good: discuss with the child to ask him what he prefers and take your decision based on this.
Chaotic Good: Let the father keep the child and help them get out of reach of the law, that is the path to happiness, not to be constrained by rules put in place by someone else.
I would call your first choice LG, your second choice CG, and your third choice chaotic insane. Chaotic is not "if the law says to do X, I will do the opposite", it is "I really don't care what the law says".
Lawful Good: return the child to the mother because that's what the law decided, it will be better for the child to be in a lawful stable situation anyway.
Neutral Good: discuss with the child to ask him what he prefers and take your decision based on this.
Chaotic Good: Let the father keep the child and help them get out of reach of the law, that is the path to happiness, not to be constrained by rules put in place by someone else.
This example is useless if we don't know why the child was kidnapped, why the mother was give custody in the first place, et cetera. Is the mother abusive but bribed the judge to gain custody? Did the father kidnap the child sell it into slavery to be able to pay of his debts that was the cause of him losing custody in the first place?
Is any of that actually important to the example?
Of course it is. If we don't know the whole scenario then we can't make a proper assesment of the situations.
The framing scenario (which you clipped out) is only about Law vs Chaotic and removes Good v. Evil from the equation. Lyxen stated that neither parent, the child, the judge, or the PC was evil (eliminating both your complications), the father was less well established in life, the mother had custody, and the child might be happier with the father.
Adding Good and Evil to the mix might change the actions of the character, but this is a situation to address the differences in good creatures who are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. The mother being abusive and bribing a judge would introduce evil into the situation, as would the father's motivations regarding slavery. Sure, those pieces of info might change the actions of a good creature in response.
I cut the quote for brevity. The point is, "kidnapping" (interesting choice of words instead of, for example "liberating") is usually not something that "good" people do. If the mother was good, why would she deny the father and child to meet each other? If the judge was good, why would they reward sole custody to just one parent? If the father was good, why did he kidnap the child? The scenario is flawed (and therefor useless as an example) since it doesn't even have objectively "good" characters as we are told.
Of course it is. If we don't know the whole scenario then we can't make a proper assessment of the situations.
These are just examples, and any specific chaotic character will make its own assessment, especially considering that facts might not be as clear, and the knowledge as perfect, and the sensibilities different.
The framing scenario (which you clipped out) is only about Law vs Chaotic and removes Good v. Evil from the equation. Lyxen stated that neither parent, the child, the judge, or the PC was evil (eliminating both your complications), the father was less well established in life, the mother had custody, and the child might be happier with the father.
Adding Good and Evil to the mix might change the actions of the character, but this is a situation to address the differences in good creatures who are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. The mother being abusive and bribing a judge would introduce evil into the situation, as would the father's motivations regarding slavery. Sure, those pieces of info might change the actions of a good creature in response.
I cut the quote for brevity. The point is, "kidnapping" (interesting choice of words instead of, for example "liberating") is usually not something that "good" people do.
Actually they do, and they might be doing it for good reasons if they feel that the child might ne happier with them, or if they feel (and this is important in terms of law-chaos) whether they feel that justice is really impartial or biased.
For example, even though the trend is getting better, we know that in custody cases, all things being equal otherwise, mothers get custody more than fathers. Is that the law ? Is it custom ? Is it impartial ? Are there reasons ? If a good character feels that he is entitled to having custody of his child and genuinely believes that it will be better for the child, he might "kidnap" the child. Happens fairly often, and it's not an evil act. It might be an unlawful one, but it does not make it evil.
If the mother was good, why would she deny the father and child to meet each other?
Because she hates the guy and genuinely believes, right or wrong, that it would be better for the child to have his mother.
If the judge was good, why would they reward sole custody to just one parent?
Because it's good for the child to have just one parent and stability, better than being traded off between two parents who hate each other. And nobondy said the judge had to be good. The law is the law, and shared custody is a modern thing anyway.
If the father was good, why did he kidnap the child? The scenario is flawed (and therefor useless as an example) since it doesn't even have objectively "good" characters as we are told.
YOu are determined to find a flaw, so I'll leave it at that, in any case, it's not even the point of what I wrote, if you read the original post. I'm even finding it significant that the only thing that you are discussing are unimportant details of the example rather than the general perspective, which is extremely tolerant...
The flaws are already there, I'm just pointing them out. I have, in this thread, discussed the difference between lawful and chaotic at quite a length. Didn't you read the whole post before you commented? In any case, if we're going to have a proper discussion we need examples that actually work. If you would like to come up with a better example, please do.
If the lawful-chaotic axis is based on a characters absolute attraction or repulsion to laws in general, then everyone would probably be lawful and chaotic at the same time, because their can be laws that are complete opposites of each other:
Say there are two kingdoms, the "Jumping Kingdom" and the "Walking Kingdom," the "Walking Kingdom," decrees that it is prohibited to jump inside the kingdom, while the "Jumping Kingdom" decrees you have to jump all the time. One day a territory is claimed by both kingdoms and both laws apply. In a scenario like this, their is no right answer.
My point is that the attraction or repulsion to following laws is not absolute, because the laws that people create can be contradictory and irrational e.g. the rules a person with obsessive compulsive disorder makes. Furthermore people can be unaware that they are breaking laws; are lawful characters immediately supposed to know every law and regulation that exists and which law does someone follow
I think it's less meaningful that a character has a natural attraction or repulsion to laws regardless of the society or culture their in, because once again, they can opposing laws and beliefs, so I think their lawfulness should vary based on how they view a society or culture.
A lawful character supposadly is bound to the aspect of laws and rules, this can be a will or the order from a major authority figure (most of the time it's not the last one). A neutral one is a person who isn't lawful or chaotic. And FINALLY Chaotic. They basically have control and arn't psychopathy like you suggested but disagree with laws and rules and won't follow them. As chaotic good you won't kill people as your good but you will rob places if it has a good effect on (for example) the general economy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Greed is my lever, Fear my servent and Death my only friend.
YOu are determined to find a flaw, so I'll leave it at that, in any case, it's not even the point of what I wrote, if you read the original post. I'm even finding it significant that the only thing that you are discussing are unimportant details of the example rather than the general perspective, which is extremely tolerant...
The flaws are already there, I'm just pointing them out. I have, in this thread, discussed the difference between lawful and chaotic at quite a length. Didn't you read the whole post before you commented? In any case, if we're going to have a proper discussion we need examples that actually work. If you would like to come up with a better example, please do.
Look, if it was my campaign and PCs trying to find out the good course of action according to their sensibilities, I would give them more details so that they can make up their mind about what they want to do (all the time keeping it really ambiguous so that their choices counts and it makes for a good discussion).
But:
Once more, this is just an illustration of why and how lawful/neutral/chaotic people would react in a good environment, if you make one of the protagonists different, it will shift the balance and the reactions, but I'm pretty sure that it will not illustrate the point better.
Especially since this is only an EXAMPLE, certainly not a rule or even a guideline since my whole point is that even in a given alignement, there is room for millions of different sensibilities and behaviours.
At least this answers the OP's question, which, despite your claims, you have never done because in general (and in particular in this case), your arguments are only negative. You are not proposing things or explanations, you are only dissatisfied about what others propose and explain.
So, based on this, it was only an example to illustrate generalities on alignement which I don't think anyone strongly disagreed with, so my apologies if the example does not convince you but it's not that important since you seem to have accepted the general premises about alignement that I laid out. I therefore see no reason to elaborate the example further.
Dude, relax. All I'm saying is that the example is far too vague to be of any use in this discussion. Not sure what kind of unique premises that you have conjured that haven't already been said or isn't already part of teh game, but if you support what I've written in this thread about the difference between lawful, neutral and chaotic, then yes, it is another reason why your example is of no importance. Glad to see we agree. :)
Dude, relax. All I'm saying is that the example is far too vague to be of any use in this discussion. Not sure what kind of unique premises that you have conjured that haven't already been said or isn't already part of teh game, but if you support what I've written in this thread about the difference between lawful, neutral and chaotic, then yes, it is another reason why your example is of no importance. Glad to see we agree. :)
No, the example is obviously of no importance TO YOU, (but I don't care about this), the other contributors seemed to find it relevant. As for my example it is no less vague than every contribution that you make, but at least, I contribute positively, just compare your kind of contribution and mine. So no, we don't agree about what "contributing" means, either. But to discuss any further, please do contribute by providing an example answering the OP's question of the difference between LG, NG and CG, and then we'll see if it is crystal clear and "of importance".
I've already pointed out the fact that your example is flawed and therefor useless this discussion. I understand that you don't want to accept that fact just as I realize that you seem to don't want to read the entire thread before posting. But thank you for once again proving my point.
Of course it is. If we don't know the whole scenario then we can't make a proper assessment of the situations.
These are just examples, and any specific chaotic character will make its own assessment, especially considering that facts might not be as clear, and the knowledge as perfect, and the sensibilities different.
The framing scenario (which you clipped out) is only about Law vs Chaotic and removes Good v. Evil from the equation. Lyxen stated that neither parent, the child, the judge, or the PC was evil (eliminating both your complications), the father was less well established in life, the mother had custody, and the child might be happier with the father.
Adding Good and Evil to the mix might change the actions of the character, but this is a situation to address the differences in good creatures who are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. The mother being abusive and bribing a judge would introduce evil into the situation, as would the father's motivations regarding slavery. Sure, those pieces of info might change the actions of a good creature in response.
I cut the quote for brevity. The point is, "kidnapping" (interesting choice of words instead of, for example "liberating") is usually not something that "good" people do.
Actually they do, and they might be doing it for good reasons if they feel that the child might ne happier with them, or if they feel (and this is important in terms of law-chaos) whether they feel that justice is really impartial or biased.
For example, even though the trend is getting better, we know that in custody cases, all things being equal otherwise, mothers get custody more than fathers. Is that the law ? Is it custom ? Is it impartial ? Are there reasons ? If a good character feels that he is entitled to having custody of his child and genuinely believes that it will be better for the child, he might "kidnap" the child. Happens fairly often, and it's not an evil act. It might be an unlawful one, but it does not make it evil.
If the mother was good, why would she deny the father and child to meet each other?
Because she hates the guy and genuinely believes, right or wrong, that it would be better for the child to have his mother.
If the judge was good, why would they reward sole custody to just one parent?
Because it's good for the child to have just one parent and stability, better than being traded off between two parents who hate each other. And nobondy said the judge had to be good. The law is the law, and shared custody is a modern thing anyway.
If the father was good, why did he kidnap the child? The scenario is flawed (and therefor useless as an example) since it doesn't even have objectively "good" characters as we are told.
YOu are determined to find a flaw, so I'll leave it at that, in any case, it's not even the point of what I wrote, if you read the original post. I'm even finding it significant that the only thing that you are discussing are unimportant details of the example rather than the general perspective, which is extremely tolerant...
The flaws are already there, I'm just pointing them out. I have, in this thread, discussed the difference between lawful and chaotic at quite a length. Didn't you read the whole post before you commented? In any case, if we're going to have a proper discussion we need examples that actually work. If you would like to come up with a better example, please do.
There is no flaw since your 'what if' covers situations already described as non-existent. Saying "But if the situation was different, it would be different!" is a straw man, since the situation isn't different.
The strawman here is you changing what I said.
An example being a simple clear cut situation does not remove its relevance.
An example that lacks the proper information is useless and therefor irrelevant. Or at least pointless. A "good" parent would work to overcome their difference with the other "good" parent instead of letting the child suffer the potential trauma of not being allowed to spend time with both parents, for example. But sure, you could say that "the parent is good because I say the parent is good and therefor the actions of said parent is good, because I say so" but that's not really an argument, is there?
Of course it is. If we don't know the whole scenario then we can't make a proper assessment of the situations.
These are just examples, and any specific chaotic character will make its own assessment, especially considering that facts might not be as clear, and the knowledge as perfect, and the sensibilities different.
The framing scenario (which you clipped out) is only about Law vs Chaotic and removes Good v. Evil from the equation. Lyxen stated that neither parent, the child, the judge, or the PC was evil (eliminating both your complications), the father was less well established in life, the mother had custody, and the child might be happier with the father.
Adding Good and Evil to the mix might change the actions of the character, but this is a situation to address the differences in good creatures who are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. The mother being abusive and bribing a judge would introduce evil into the situation, as would the father's motivations regarding slavery. Sure, those pieces of info might change the actions of a good creature in response.
I cut the quote for brevity. The point is, "kidnapping" (interesting choice of words instead of, for example "liberating") is usually not something that "good" people do.
Actually they do, and they might be doing it for good reasons if they feel that the child might ne happier with them, or if they feel (and this is important in terms of law-chaos) whether they feel that justice is really impartial or biased.
For example, even though the trend is getting better, we know that in custody cases, all things being equal otherwise, mothers get custody more than fathers. Is that the law ? Is it custom ? Is it impartial ? Are there reasons ? If a good character feels that he is entitled to having custody of his child and genuinely believes that it will be better for the child, he might "kidnap" the child. Happens fairly often, and it's not an evil act. It might be an unlawful one, but it does not make it evil.
If the mother was good, why would she deny the father and child to meet each other?
Because she hates the guy and genuinely believes, right or wrong, that it would be better for the child to have his mother.
If the judge was good, why would they reward sole custody to just one parent?
Because it's good for the child to have just one parent and stability, better than being traded off between two parents who hate each other. And nobondy said the judge had to be good. The law is the law, and shared custody is a modern thing anyway.
If the father was good, why did he kidnap the child? The scenario is flawed (and therefor useless as an example) since it doesn't even have objectively "good" characters as we are told.
YOu are determined to find a flaw, so I'll leave it at that, in any case, it's not even the point of what I wrote, if you read the original post. I'm even finding it significant that the only thing that you are discussing are unimportant details of the example rather than the general perspective, which is extremely tolerant...
The flaws are already there, I'm just pointing them out. I have, in this thread, discussed the difference between lawful and chaotic at quite a length. Didn't you read the whole post before you commented? In any case, if we're going to have a proper discussion we need examples that actually work. If you would like to come up with a better example, please do.
There is no flaw since your 'what if' covers situations already described as non-existent. Saying "But if the situation was different, it would be different!" is a straw man, since the situation isn't different.
The strawman here is you changing what I said.
An example being a simple clear cut situation does not remove its relevance.
An example that lacks the proper information is useless and therefor irrelevant. Or at least pointless. A "good" parent would work to overcome their difference with the other "good" parent instead of letting the child suffer the potential trauma of not being allowed to spend time with both parents, for example. But sure, you could say that "the parent is good because I say the parent is good and therefor the actions of said parent is good, because I say so" but that's not really an argument, is there?
In D&D it absolutely is, because the character development begins and ends with the DM. There are no unknowns to all players because one player (the DM) controls the scene. If they want a simple clear cut situation then that is exactly what it is.
we can discuss real life all day regarding alignment, but the game exists as contrived moments, usually big ones, conceived by the DM, and only as simple or complicated as they choose to make it.
also, I agree with Lyxen and Kotath, your responses are certainly unproductive and offer nothing more than dismissal of others ideas without offering any of your own. Put up your own idea of alignment (or at least reference the post # you feel best articulated it) or shut up.
my posts at # 91, 94, and 95 sum up mine (so you can’t accuse me of the same)
I think the lawful-chaotic axis is too broad and not specific enough, it doesn't take into account a character's outlook on different cultures and societies
Remember that, in its basic theory, law-chaos is not more sensitive to culture and society than good-evil. It's absolute, it's a cosmic principle, of being attracted or repelled by laws in general, not specific ones.
Once more, alignment is not prescriptive, it's not absolute, it just shows tendencies, it's descriptive.
You said that the lawful-chaotic is "absolute, it's a cosmic principle, of being attracted or repelled by laws in general," but then you said "alignment is not prescriptive, it's not absolute, it just shows tendencies, it's descriptive."
I can't remember which post it was but I heard on this discussion that it's up to the DM to decide who or what is which alignment, but I think whether the alignment of anything is up to a DM or a player is subjective, because in real life people aren't omniscient, they interpret the world as they see fit. It's like that phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If you have an opinion about something and someone else disagrees with you, then it's interpretable, just like social laws and unlike physical laws. As far as I know, the laws of physics are the only laws that are truly universal, because although people can interpret them however they see fit, they weren't created by people and they can't be broken.
Also I'm pretty sure order is just a form of chaos: think about it, when you look at the frame of reference of a person in a stationary position and combine that movement with the stuff happening in and outside of your body, you get a lot of chaos:
Inside you body are trillions of red blood cells moving around along with the various micro organisms interacting with them, and inside all that stuff are atoms and sub-atomic particles. Just to be clear I hardly know enough about quantum physics to give a good example or explanation: on the atomic and sub-atomic level of matter are quantum mechanics, this stuff is crazy, particles can create effects that can echo backward and forward through time, teleport and do other things I couldn't begin to understand.
Outside of your body are the geologic plates your on top of, moving a few inches per year; earth rotates around it's own axis at 1,037.5646 miles per hour, around the suns orbit at 66,660 miles per hour and the sun orbits the galactic center at a rate of 536,865 mph.
My point is that order is a matter of perspective, it's perceiving things from a stationary frame of reference, while in constant motion, and motion is chaotic
So chaos is everywhere and order is just the absence of chaos, like how coldness is the absence of heat, and how much chaos you can perceive is a matter of perspective. There can be activities all around that a person has no awareness of, such as the consequences of their actions or the effects their presence has on others. All is chaos, but only so much so that we may have form and function, those are what order is.
You said that the lawful-chaotic is "absolute, it's a cosmic principle, of being attracted or repelled by laws in general," but then you said "alignment is not prescriptive, it's not absolute, it just shows tendencies, it's descriptive."
Alright, taken out of context, it seems contradictory, however, wha I was meaning in these two different posts relates to different things as well:"
The definition of an alignement is absolute, it is not relative to the conviction of a given individual or society.
For a given individual, it is not absolute, it does not define him and force him to do things in a certain way, it is not prescriptive.\
First, we do not really know the laws of physics. We have theories that approximate them to a certain degree. The best example of this, people thought the newtonian physics were absolutely right and perfectly described the universe, and it turned out that people later crafter more refined theories that better approximate it, and this will probably continue ad infinitum.
Thank you for the information, I didn't know this before
Second, the laws of physics in a D&D world are different from those in our universe, gravity in particular is different and there is no proof that fundamental "laws" like the conservation of energy applies, in particular when you consider magic. This is very important to take into account for the rest of this post, because I will start by discussing real world physics to show to you that even then, chaos is very possibly not what you think it is, but the crux of the discussion is that, at least in the genre books where the notion of alignement comes from, law and chaos are not physics, not more than good and evil, they are cosmic principles, philosophies, that might translate into physical consequences, but are not, at their core.
I'm not saying that the laws of physics directly influence D&D's reality, but they do influence it indirectly: in the real world people are bound by certain physical properties and characteristics that form the basis of normality. E.g. Gravity has a constant impact on our lives, but it's so familiar that were desensitized to it. The laws of physics have limited how life can develop and evolve and most likely how are brains work and how we think: A big part of how we are and what we are is because of the laws of physics, and if you take away the laws of physics from reality, then everything you experience would either be completely different (for better or for worse is beyond me, but I wouldn't wanna find out) or potentially destroy everything they are built upon. Which could mean no complex chemical compounds to form DNA, no neuroanatomy to form complex thoughts and ideas and no inventions to ever exist.
And even more importantly, even in quantum theory, the Second law of thermodynamics applies, meaning that there is a definitive arrow of time and entropy will always increase. So even though this might seem to further chaos, in the end, chaos is very tightly bound by law. :p
From what I gather your saying their is research within the sub-fields of physics that state that order holds control over chaos, because of an arrow of time and constant growth of entropy? I don't understand the definition of entropy or this arrow of time, but maybe it does exist. Perhaps their might even be other dimensions of time that function completely different than this arrow of time? Maybe it's like a single dimension and their are other dimensions of time, possibly higher ones, that intersect with it giving it "volume" like how spatial dimensions work. I could be wrong, but I do know that physics is an incomplete study: The laws of physics are apart of physics and you said it yourself that their still being researched.
First, we do not really know the laws of physics. We have theories that approximate them to a certain degree. The best example of this, people thought the newtonian physics were absolutely right and perfectly described the universe, and it turned out that people later crafter more refined theories that better approximate it, and this will probably continue ad infinitum.
So who's to say that the current models of the laws of thermodynamics and quantum theory are any less imperfect or misunderstood than the current laws physics or that their could be extradimensional time; after all, how do you know what you don't know?
Second, you can say that "order is just the absence of chaos",
I might be off on that one, my point was that order is a matter of perspective, it's perceiving things from a stationary frame of reference, while in constant motion, and motion is chaotic. I then continued and went on to say that:
So chaos is everywhere and order is just the absence of chaos, like how coldness is the absence of heat, and how much chaos you can perceive is a matter of perspective. There can be activities all around that a person has no awareness of, such as the consequences of their actions or the effects their presence has on others. All is chaos, but only so much so that we may have form and function, those are what order is.
Also I'm pretty sure order is just a form of chaos: think about it, when you look at the frame of reference of a person in a stationary position and combine that movement with the stuff happening in and outside of your body, you get a lot of chaos:
OK, you have not reread my posts and you are obviously not going to discuss in good faith. I pretty much expected this to be the case from other discussions with you, but had hoped that I was wrong in this. I can see now that I'll get nowhere with you and you'll continue to ignore or twist my words, and refuse to even consider anything outside your own small-minded views, so I'm done discussing this with you.
Well, that is just rude of you. But sure, if you feel that you can't hold a civil conversation without resorting to low blows then perhaps it is best that you leave. I welcome you back any time you feel like you would like to discuss without strawmen or putting words into other people's mouths. Until then, have a good time. Cheers!
I wish I had not come back to this thread to see this response.
You call me rude, when your very behaviour toward me has been rude and dismissive, and say that I am resorting to lows blows when you have been pulling cheap shots throughout. It's obvious that you misunderstood my initial point, yet you even dismiss that, claiming I have been "changing positions constantly".
Also, if you think using "strawmen or putting words into other people's mouths" is unacceptable, you may wish to re-read your own posts as you have been doing precisely that throughout.
When I finally have had enough of you ignoring what I have written, you call me rude for pointing this out. Yeah, no, that's not gonna fly. I'm going to leave this thread and not come back to it, because it will likely just make my blood boil to the point where I say something which attracts the ire of the moderators. This is not because I "can't hold a civil conversation without resorting to low blows", but because it is infuriating trying to hold a discussion with someone who ignores what you say or takes things out of context and twists them to make their argument easier.
I strongly suggest you take a good, long look at yourself, though. People in glass houses...
But D&D is made to simulate not our world, but worlds and universes like Elric, where principles like Law and Chaos exist beyond the (again, really interesting) descriptions of chaos as you are providing them.
This is the entire problem boiled down to its best and most valid point. Something people have been unintentionally (or otherwise) misconstruing for decades now. The D&D Multiverse is not our Universe. The gods are manifest in the Multiverse. Magic is real. Law/Chaos (or Good/Evil) are manifest, testable forces in the Multiverse. Otherwise, the Negative and Positive Planes of Energy would not exist. The Cosmic Wheel couldn't exist. Alignment has everything to do with how you "Align" with the Outer Planes. What part of the Cosmic Struggle you're "in league with". Its why AD&D1E had "Alignment Tongues" which weren't even real languages but were phrases, informal cues and the like that (if you knew what to look for) you could "communicate" (after a fashion) with those of like mind.
People can run a masterclass course on modern ethics and morality and it doesn't amount to a squirt of p!ss with regard to D&D because, quite literally, its irrelevant to the fabric of the game's reality. If you want modern morality and definitions of Good/Evil, then you're not playing D&D. You're playing something LIKE D&D, but its not D&D.
The fact is that if people are going to have this continued hand-wringing over Alignment then it either needs to be scrapped entirely or the Developers need to get their heads out of their butts and actually make it mean something again.
While all these references are really interesting in and of themselves, for me they don't really pertain to chaos. First, it seems to me that you are confusing chaos with complexity and possibly incomputability, but it's not the same thing, even in our universe.
The mathematics of chaos theory is relevant to those things, but mathematical chaos theory doesn't have anything to do with D&D chaos (the mathematical concept wasn't even popularized until the 80s) which pretty clearly has its roots in F&SF of the time period, such as Michael Moorcock and Roger Zelazney.
I view alignment as a placement on two seperate spectrums....based upon tendencies of an individual's choices. The 1st spectrum deals with morals and values-good vs. evil. Mainly dealing with sustaining, collective betterment, and symbiotic energy at the one end (good) vs. destructive, self-indulgent, and parasitical energy (evil) at the other. The 2nd spectrum deals with order and cohesiveness (lawful) vs. randomness and singularity (chaos) as the other. Thus, Good vs Evil is the spectrum that deals with the endgoal and purpose; while Law vs. Chaos is the means by which the purpose is executed.
But D&D is made to simulate not our world, but worlds and universes like Elric, where principles like Law and Chaos exist beyond the (again, really interesting) descriptions of chaos as you are providing them.
This is the entire problem boiled down to its best and most valid point. Something people have been unintentionally (or otherwise) misconstruing for decades now. The D&D Multiverse is not our Universe. The gods are manifest in the Multiverse. Magic is real. Law/Chaos (or Good/Evil) are manifest, testable forces in the Multiverse. Otherwise, the Negative and Positive Planes of Energy would not exist. The Cosmic Wheel couldn't exist. Alignment has everything to do with how you "Align" with the Outer Planes. What part of the Cosmic Struggle you're "in league with". Its why AD&D1E had "Alignment Tongues" which weren't even real languages but were phrases, informal cues and the like that (if you knew what to look for) you could "communicate" (after a fashion) with those of like mind.
People can run a masterclass course on modern ethics and morality and it doesn't amount to a squirt of p!ss with regard to D&D because, quite literally, its irrelevant to the fabric of the game's reality. If you want modern morality and definitions of Good/Evil, then you're not playing D&D. You're playing something LIKE D&D, but its not D&D.
The fact is that if people are going to have this continued hand-wringing over Alignment then it either needs to be scrapped entirely or the Developers need to get their heads out of their butts and actually make it mean something again.
I view alignment as a placement on two seperate spectrums....based upon tendencies of an individual's choices. The 1st spectrum deals with morals and values-good vs. evil. Mainly dealing with sustaining, collective betterment, and symbiotic energy at the one end (good) vs. destructive, self-indulgent, and parasitical energy (evil) at the other. The 2nd spectrum deals with order and cohesiveness (lawful) vs. randomness and singularity (chaos) as the other. Thus, Good vs Evil is the spectrum that deals with the endgoal and purpose; while Law vs. Chaos is the means by which the purpose is executed.
I don't like the idea that their is some cosmic system or gods that define who or what a person is:
When it's established that someone is "this" or "that" period or that fate is pre-determined by gods or prophecies, then non-god character's are pretty much puppets with feelings that are only capable of what fate decides for them. But when character's have free-will, what they do with it matters, it also says something about the layers of who they are, they have an impact on the story and vice versa i.e. they gain character progression
It makes a character's goals and the consequences of their actions less meaningful. E.g. say their is a prophecy foretold by the gods that someone will win a competition, so this person decides to slack off and they end up winning. It's less compelling from a writing standpoint for something like pre-determined fates or gods to be the cause of everything, because it would be all Deus Ex Machina's and no real conflict beyond the conflicts of the gods. It's much more compelling when their is uncertainty in outcomes or when character's act based on intuitive decision-making or determination, these things can be a lot more compelling to a story, when used properly.
Life has more meaning when it's self defined and uncertain, because then we can be subjective about the world and describe it through our own perspectives of it.
I feel like the chaotic good character is just as likely if not more likely than neutral to ask the child and work off that, because the law may not know what is best for the child and the parents clearly can't find some kind of agreement.
The neutral character would discuss the pros and cons of each and help the child come to a decision between the two. The chaotic character would bluntly ask and work with the child's first statement, perhaps even considering if the child said they wanted to run off and join the circus.
***This signature says something else when you aren't looking at it***
Is any of that actually important to the example? The framing scenario (which you clipped out) is only about Law vs Chaotic and removes Good v. Evil from the equation. Lyxen stated that neither parent, the child, the judge, or the PC was evil (eliminating both your complications), the father was less well established in life, the mother had custody, and the child might be happier with the father.
Adding Good and Evil to the mix might change the actions of the character, but this is a situation to address the differences in good creatures who are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. The mother being abusive and bribing a judge would introduce evil into the situation, as would the father's motivations regarding slavery. Sure, those pieces of info might change the actions of a good creature in response.
I think the lawful-chaotic axis is too broad and not specific enough, it doesn't take into account a character's outlook on different cultures and societies: what if you fully abide by the authorities and customs of one civilization, but you completely disobey the laws of another? Or what if you only follow some of the laws? What if you only followed the law because you benefited from it; and the moment it stopped, you disregarded it? Finally, what system of laws is a character's lawful-chaotic alignment based off of? Are they from a lawful evil society, a lawful good society or a pack of wild animals with no rulebook to be found?
Why do they follow laws? Zealousness, some personal gain, etc.?
Is their a standard that dictates a character's Lawful-Chaotic alignment: Is it based on the laws of a particular society, culture or some socioculturally indiscriminate or unspecified set of rules.
I would call your first choice LG, your second choice CG, and your third choice chaotic insane. Chaotic is not "if the law says to do X, I will do the opposite", it is "I really don't care what the law says".
Of course it is. If we don't know the whole scenario then we can't make a proper assesment of the situations.
I cut the quote for brevity. The point is, "kidnapping" (interesting choice of words instead of, for example "liberating") is usually not something that "good" people do. If the mother was good, why would she deny the father and child to meet each other? If the judge was good, why would they reward sole custody to just one parent? If the father was good, why did he kidnap the child? The scenario is flawed (and therefor useless as an example) since it doesn't even have objectively "good" characters as we are told.
The flaws are already there, I'm just pointing them out. I have, in this thread, discussed the difference between lawful and chaotic at quite a length. Didn't you read the whole post before you commented? In any case, if we're going to have a proper discussion we need examples that actually work. If you would like to come up with a better example, please do.
If the lawful-chaotic axis is based on a characters absolute attraction or repulsion to laws in general, then everyone would probably be lawful and chaotic at the same time, because their can be laws that are complete opposites of each other:
Say there are two kingdoms, the "Jumping Kingdom" and the "Walking Kingdom," the "Walking Kingdom," decrees that it is prohibited to jump inside the kingdom, while the "Jumping Kingdom" decrees you have to jump all the time. One day a territory is claimed by both kingdoms and both laws apply. In a scenario like this, their is no right answer.
My point is that the attraction or repulsion to following laws is not absolute, because the laws that people create can be contradictory and irrational e.g. the rules a person with obsessive compulsive disorder makes. Furthermore people can be unaware that they are breaking laws; are lawful characters immediately supposed to know every law and regulation that exists and which law does someone follow
I think it's less meaningful that a character has a natural attraction or repulsion to laws regardless of the society or culture their in, because once again, they can opposing laws and beliefs, so I think their lawfulness should vary based on how they view a society or culture.
A lawful character supposadly is bound to the aspect of laws and rules, this can be a will or the order from a major authority figure (most of the time it's not the last one). A neutral one is a person who isn't lawful or chaotic. And FINALLY Chaotic. They basically have control and arn't psychopathy like you suggested but disagree with laws and rules and won't follow them. As chaotic good you won't kill people as your good but you will rob places if it has a good effect on (for example) the general economy.
Greed is my lever, Fear my servent and Death my only friend.
Join the Grammer Cult.
Dude, relax. All I'm saying is that the example is far too vague to be of any use in this discussion. Not sure what kind of unique premises that you have conjured that haven't already been said or isn't already part of teh game, but if you support what I've written in this thread about the difference between lawful, neutral and chaotic, then yes, it is another reason why your example is of no importance. Glad to see we agree. :)
I've already pointed out the fact that your example is flawed and therefor useless this discussion. I understand that you don't want to accept that fact just as I realize that you seem to don't want to read the entire thread before posting. But thank you for once again proving my point.
Cheers!
The strawman here is you changing what I said.
An example that lacks the proper information is useless and therefor irrelevant. Or at least pointless. A "good" parent would work to overcome their difference with the other "good" parent instead of letting the child suffer the potential trauma of not being allowed to spend time with both parents, for example. But sure, you could say that "the parent is good because I say the parent is good and therefor the actions of said parent is good, because I say so" but that's not really an argument, is there?
In D&D it absolutely is, because the character development begins and ends with the DM. There are no unknowns to all players because one player (the DM) controls the scene. If they want a simple clear cut situation then that is exactly what it is.
we can discuss real life all day regarding alignment, but the game exists as contrived moments, usually big ones, conceived by the DM, and only as simple or complicated as they choose to make it.
also, I agree with Lyxen and Kotath, your responses are certainly unproductive and offer nothing more than dismissal of others ideas without offering any of your own. Put up your own idea of alignment (or at least reference the post # you feel best articulated it) or shut up.
my posts at # 91, 94, and 95 sum up mine (so you can’t accuse me of the same)
Holy forking shirt! Now that’s what I call a quote chain.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You said that the lawful-chaotic is "absolute, it's a cosmic principle, of being attracted or repelled by laws in general," but then you said "alignment is not prescriptive, it's not absolute, it just shows tendencies, it's descriptive."
I can't remember which post it was but I heard on this discussion that it's up to the DM to decide who or what is which alignment, but I think whether the alignment of anything is up to a DM or a player is subjective, because in real life people aren't omniscient, they interpret the world as they see fit. It's like that phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If you have an opinion about something and someone else disagrees with you, then it's interpretable, just like social laws and unlike physical laws. As far as I know, the laws of physics are the only laws that are truly universal, because although people can interpret them however they see fit, they weren't created by people and they can't be broken.
Also I'm pretty sure order is just a form of chaos: think about it, when you look at the frame of reference of a person in a stationary position and combine that movement with the stuff happening in and outside of your body, you get a lot of chaos:
Inside you body are trillions of red blood cells moving around along with the various micro organisms interacting with them, and inside all that stuff are atoms and sub-atomic particles. Just to be clear I hardly know enough about quantum physics to give a good example or explanation: on the atomic and sub-atomic level of matter are quantum mechanics, this stuff is crazy, particles can create effects that can echo backward and forward through time, teleport and do other things I couldn't begin to understand.
Outside of your body are the geologic plates your on top of, moving a few inches per year; earth rotates around it's own axis at 1,037.5646 miles per hour, around the suns orbit at 66,660 miles per hour and the sun orbits the galactic center at a rate of 536,865 mph.
My point is that order is a matter of perspective, it's perceiving things from a stationary frame of reference, while in constant motion, and motion is chaotic
So chaos is everywhere and order is just the absence of chaos, like how coldness is the absence of heat, and how much chaos you can perceive is a matter of perspective. There can be activities all around that a person has no awareness of, such as the consequences of their actions or the effects their presence has on others. All is chaos, but only so much so that we may have form and function, those are what order is.
This Quantum Theory Predicts That The Future Might Be Influencing The Past (sciencealert.com)
First Object Teleported from Earth to Orbit | MIT Technology Review
How Far Do Tectonic Plates Move Each Year? (reference.com)
How Fast Does the Earth Spin? (thoughtco.com)
Distance & Speed Of Sun's Orbit Around Galactic Centre Measured - Universe Today
Yes
Thank you for the information, I didn't know this before
I'm not saying that the laws of physics directly influence D&D's reality, but they do influence it indirectly: in the real world people are bound by certain physical properties and characteristics that form the basis of normality. E.g. Gravity has a constant impact on our lives, but it's so familiar that were desensitized to it. The laws of physics have limited how life can develop and evolve and most likely how are brains work and how we think: A big part of how we are and what we are is because of the laws of physics, and if you take away the laws of physics from reality, then everything you experience would either be completely different (for better or for worse is beyond me, but I wouldn't wanna find out) or potentially destroy everything they are built upon. Which could mean no complex chemical compounds to form DNA, no neuroanatomy to form complex thoughts and ideas and no inventions to ever exist.
Exploring other dimensions - Alex Rosenthal and George Zaidan - YouTube
I wish I had not come back to this thread to see this response.
You call me rude, when your very behaviour toward me has been rude and dismissive, and say that I am resorting to lows blows when you have been pulling cheap shots throughout. It's obvious that you misunderstood my initial point, yet you even dismiss that, claiming I have been "changing positions constantly".
Also, if you think using "strawmen or putting words into other people's mouths" is unacceptable, you may wish to re-read your own posts as you have been doing precisely that throughout.
When I finally have had enough of you ignoring what I have written, you call me rude for pointing this out. Yeah, no, that's not gonna fly. I'm going to leave this thread and not come back to it, because it will likely just make my blood boil to the point where I say something which attracts the ire of the moderators. This is not because I "can't hold a civil conversation without resorting to low blows", but because it is infuriating trying to hold a discussion with someone who ignores what you say or takes things out of context and twists them to make their argument easier.
I strongly suggest you take a good, long look at yourself, though. People in glass houses...
This is the entire problem boiled down to its best and most valid point. Something people have been unintentionally (or otherwise) misconstruing for decades now. The D&D Multiverse is not our Universe. The gods are manifest in the Multiverse. Magic is real. Law/Chaos (or Good/Evil) are manifest, testable forces in the Multiverse. Otherwise, the Negative and Positive Planes of Energy would not exist. The Cosmic Wheel couldn't exist. Alignment has everything to do with how you "Align" with the Outer Planes. What part of the Cosmic Struggle you're "in league with". Its why AD&D1E had "Alignment Tongues" which weren't even real languages but were phrases, informal cues and the like that (if you knew what to look for) you could "communicate" (after a fashion) with those of like mind.
People can run a masterclass course on modern ethics and morality and it doesn't amount to a squirt of p!ss with regard to D&D because, quite literally, its irrelevant to the fabric of the game's reality. If you want modern morality and definitions of Good/Evil, then you're not playing D&D. You're playing something LIKE D&D, but its not D&D.
The fact is that if people are going to have this continued hand-wringing over Alignment then it either needs to be scrapped entirely or the Developers need to get their heads out of their butts and actually make it mean something again.
The mathematics of chaos theory is relevant to those things, but mathematical chaos theory doesn't have anything to do with D&D chaos (the mathematical concept wasn't even popularized until the 80s) which pretty clearly has its roots in F&SF of the time period, such as Michael Moorcock and Roger Zelazney.
I view alignment as a placement on two seperate spectrums....based upon tendencies of an individual's choices. The 1st spectrum deals with morals and values-good vs. evil. Mainly dealing with sustaining, collective betterment, and symbiotic energy at the one end (good) vs. destructive, self-indulgent, and parasitical energy (evil) at the other. The 2nd spectrum deals with order and cohesiveness (lawful) vs. randomness and singularity (chaos) as the other. Thus, Good vs Evil is the spectrum that deals with the endgoal and purpose; while Law vs. Chaos is the means by which the purpose is executed.
I don't like the idea that their is some cosmic system or gods that define who or what a person is:
Life has more meaning when it's self defined and uncertain, because then we can be subjective about the world and describe it through our own perspectives of it.