Another alignment thread?

[lorddrake]

I'm not trying to bait any discussion on the overdiscussed topic, but one character concept have been bugging me for a while now.

Picture this character, he is loved, works with the law, obey his superiors. He is nice and everybody simply knows he is dependable and you could trust him like a swiss watch.

Except that this is a ruse.

The thing is, this guy is a complete chaotic dude in a super lawful society and now he tries to mimic the behaviour of lawful guys.
(This is similar how Lord Shojo acted in the Order of the Stick, but with a difference. Shojo did chaotic things on the side - acting the lawful part. The character I'm describing does not. He always do the lawful thing - as a ruse)

My question is:

If a person always does the lawful thing can one be still chaotic?

[Vorandril]

Depends; what does the character do to reaffirm their actual beliefs?

Also: Why are they bothering with said ruse?

Also also: Might they instead be Neutral? Not everything must be Law or Chaos. =P

[lorddrake]

Depends; what does the character do to reaffirm their actual beliefs?

Also: Why are they bothering with said ruse?

Also also: Might they instead be Neutral? Not everything must be Law or Chaos. =P

1- Let us just assume this character does nothing to reaffirm his actual beliefs.

2- People would feel betrayed and he would be arrested (he is a high officer and someone of law in a society where being not lawful is a crime).

3- He could be, but is said to be chaotic. I want to know if there would be grounds for this claim.

[Vorandril]

1- Let us just assume this character does nothing to reaffirm his actual beliefs.

2- People would feel betrayed and he would be arrested (he is a high officer and someone of law in a society where being not lawful is a crime).

3- He could be, but is said to be chaotic. I want to know if there would be grounds for this claim.

Ehhhh, not so much. I'd say he's neutral good.
Eventually not doing what comes naturally gets over-ridden by the things you actually do. Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant, habits form and eventually those habits are what you believe in.

The fact the character is more concerned with the happiness of others firmly plops him down as a good for the good god type. And doing the enforcing of the law does not a Lawful character make. I still think that the "Lawful" aspect of alignment should be relabeled "Order" because it has nothing to do with written law.

But anywho, yea. Neutral Good.

[Red Fel]

There's definitely a psychological component. If you perform an action, or a type of action, repeatedly over along period, you get accustomed to it. (Some people would call that a "habit," but I would call a habit a particular garment worn by members of religious orders. Tomato, po-tah-to.) As Vorandril points out, eventually your habitual actions override your inherent tendencies.

There's also the fact that most creatures on the Material aren't inherently any alignment. A person isn't inherently Good, or Chaotic, or what-have-you unless he has a specific type or subtype that causes it, generally speaking. Further, your alignment isn't based solely on your intentions; it's also based on your actions. (Although, how much is action and how much is intention is a matter of debate.)

So, yeah. A Chaotic person acting Lawful day-in, day-out, would ultimately shift away from Chaos. He might not become fully Lawful, but he couldn't call himself Chaotic anymore.

[Vorandril]

Also keep in mind that the alignment system is completely an out of character thing. An angel doesn't think of itself as Lawful Good because that is just a game mechanic. Detect Good/Evil/Law/Chaos being spells that detect when there's a creature that exudes these traits like an angel would. Not someone who follows the archetype.

In the end character wouldn't think of himself as "chaotic" or "Lawful". It's pretty much just a stat that determines if your behavior makes you suffer when you pick up a Holy weapon or not.

[lorddrake]

Also keep in mind that the alignment system is completely an out of character thing. An angel doesn't think of itself as Lawful Good because that is just a game mechanic. Detect Good/Evil/Law/Chaos being spells that detect when there's a creature that exudes these traits like an angel would. Not someone who follows the archetype.

In the end character wouldn't think of himself as "chaotic" or "Lawful". It's pretty much just a stat that determines if your behavior makes you suffer when you pick up a Holy weapon or not.

Well, I'm mostly agreeing with the 'habit' approach, however I can't agree with you there. Let us picture a world where there are humans as curious and investigative as we are. They discover (somehow) that there is a series of spells that can detect characteristics - let us call them elementary characteristics.

They see that John has characteristics of the type 1, which angels and devils have. Soon they will create a label and they will try to racionalize it. This is how things would probably go. We can think as something abstract in our world (since it is abstract here) but for them these things are more than concepts. There are places where people with the characteristic of the type 1 can't enter. There are items this John wouldn't be able to hold and so on.

I can imagine this like blood type. There was a time when blood of every person was theoretically the same. Red and equal. However they discovered that you would die when receiving blood from some people and wouldn't die if receiving blood from other people. Investigation led to discovering different blood types.

What I said make sense?

[Pan151]

Construcing the artificial personna of a lawful and good person and never brealking it, despite not actually being either of the two, for the sole reason that it is more convenient to do so, screams True Neutral to me. You know, the kind of guy that may or may not have chaotic and/or evil tendencies, but can't really be bothered to act on his deeper thoughts and desires either way, and instead elects to just go with the flow.

[Duke of Urrel]

As I understand Lord Shojo, he by no means always behaved Lawfully. He probably broke the law at least once every day. But he did so in secret. It's easy to get away with that kind of thing if you're the chief of government and you have a lot of Lawful servants who swear absolute obedience to you, in the mistaken belief that your word is the Law. So I don't think it's controversial at all to consider Lord Shojo to have been a Chaotic-Good ruler who always pretended to be Lawful. Most of his subjects may have imagined that he was Lawful, but he certainly knew better.

Would a Chaotic character be Chaotic if she ALWAYS pretended to be Lawful? The problem with this sentence is the word "always." If you ALWAYS pretend and NEVER perform according to your secret inclinations, then perhaps you eventually really become who you pretend to be. But hardly anybody who pretends to be something they're not keeps up the pretense at ALL times. Usually, the whole point of pretending is to deceive people, so that, for example, you can secretly perform Chaotic acts, while tricking most people into believing that you're Lawful. Just as Lord Shojo pretended to be Lawful, Evil creatures often pretend to be Good, but they don't pretend ALL the time; that would completely defeat the purpose of pretending. An Evil creature pretending to be Good is really only waiting for the next opportunity to secretly betray somebody who they've tricked into trusting them.

[Dalebert]

Eventually not doing what comes naturally gets over-ridden by the things you actually do. Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant, habits form and eventually those habits are what you believe in.

Agreed. If you NEVER act on it, it seems hard for me to buy that's your alignment. It has to express somehow somewhere to be believable. Maybe you are extremely cautious about it and worry about being caught, but somehow, some way, you will need to discreetly throw a wrench in the works or something.

[Qwertystop]

Yes (to Dalebert). Similarly, a Chaotic person pretending to be Lawful... makes sense, in a forced-to-it kind of way, but I can't see someone Chaotic not pulling off small rebellions against that when it wouldn't be an issue (when alone and unobserved, or when it's small enough to get away with it). Unless there's omnipresent observers or the person is being really really cautious, in which case... um. It gets kind of fuzzy.

[Dalebert]

Unless there's omnipresent observers or the person is being really really cautious, in which case... um. It gets kind of fuzzy.

If really, really cautious is so cautious that you're too paranoid to ever act on it even in private or really safe situations, then I'd posit you're basically neutral at most and maybe even lawful. When you're cautious to that degree, you have demonstrated you believe being lawful is the best way to live your life. The reasons are practical--because you think the consequences of being chaotic are very negative. But lots of people base their ethics on what's practical.

Re: neutral or lawful--
Are there any significant negative consequences from his society for behaving in a basically neutral manner (not lawful but not chaotic)? For instance, what if he obeys the laws but doesn't go to any extra effort to assist law enforcement or go on missions for the leaders unless it's for the compensation offered? If so, then you could argue he's neutral. If he's actually behaving lawfully ALL THE TIME because it benefits him (nice job, people like him and trust him, etc.) then he clearly believes behaving lawfully is the best behavior. Then he's actually lawful.

[Segev]

What you're describing is a man who has strong impulsive urges but who has schooled himself to control them nearly completely. (I imagine he is at least a little bit spontaneous; even LN types can be. Or maybe not; maybe he does the Half-Vulcan thing of refusing to even come close to the line so as not to accidentally slip over.)

That is a truly lawful person, and strong in his ethical adherence. Good, too, as others have noted, since he cares about others' desires and doesn't want to let them down.

He's not chaotic. He is, instead, a lawful man who views those urges he suppresses as problems to keep suppressed. If he's self-loathing, he may wrongfully hate himself for even HAVING those urges, not realizing that having them is something everybody does; acting on them is what would make him "sinful" (in terms of violating his lawful alignment).

That he cares and strives to be lawful, even if he thinks of it as "a ruse," means he's lawful. When he dies and goes before his divine judges, they will laud him for his strength of character, and praise him for his restraint. They will tell him up front that his urges are not signs of chaos, but rather his restraint in the face of them are signs of a strong soul.

[AMFV]

I'm not trying to bait any discussion on the overdiscussed topic, but one character concept have been bugging me for a while now.

Picture this character, he is loved, works with the law, obey his superiors. He is nice and everybody simply knows he is dependable and you could trust him like a swiss watch.

Except that this is a ruse.

The thing is, this guy is a complete chaotic dude in a super lawful society and now he tries to mimic the behaviour of lawful guys.
(This is similar how Lord Shojo acted in the Order of the Stick, but with a difference. Shojo did chaotic things on the side - acting the lawful part. The character I'm describing does not. He always do the lawful thing - as a ruse)

My question is:

If a person always does the lawful thing can one be still chaotic?

Well here's an counter-example. There is a Wizard who is now infiltrating an Evil army, he rapes, pillages, sacrifices virgins on the dark altars, and speaks the dark words of worship. He has betrayed his friends, his family, his country. He seeks to gain power in the most evil ways imaginable, often experimenting on sentient beings, particularly while they're still alive. He massacres unarmed women and children after conquering their villages. He has a tent full of mind raped pleasure slaves.

The thing is... it's all a ruse, he's only doing it because he wants to infiltrate the dark army, because he's afraid of the consequences of not doing these things.

You'd be very hard pressed not to make an argument that this fellow is Evil, and very much so. Because our alignment is derived much more from our actions than our motivations. And even if he does small Good things when no one is there, it isn't enough to overcome the Evil he does otherwise.

[Segev]

You may find this to be a useful discussion. But be warned, it's a TVtropes page, and those are DANGEROUS.

[AMFV]

You may find this to be a useful discussion. But be warned, it's a TVtropes page, and those are DANGEROUS.

It's also worth noting that you could have Good character infiltrate an evil Army and try to do the things that are the most Good, trying to stop harm to as many people as possible. That'd be the Shojo to the OP's character. Still good because he does Good things, even if he's surrounded by Evil.

[Vogonjeltz]

The character I'm describing does not. He always do the lawful thing - as a ruse)

If under no circumstances does he do the Chaotic thing, it's not a ruse, he really is Lawful, even if that's not what he believes. Personal beliefs are immaterial, alignment is dictated by the sum of a characters actions.

On the other hand:

If he's simply doing Lawful things to maintain a cover in order to achieve an ultimately highly Chaotic ends, then it's still a ruse, and he would remain Chaotic. There does have to be some kind of end game though.

Note: This doesn't apply to Good vs. Evil. Doing evil things renders any outcome evil so the character would likely be Neutral or Evil. Whereas doing Good things to maintain an Evil cover still gets to be totally Evil. (Cityscape has a great example of this).

[AMFV]

If under no circumstances does he do the Chaotic thing, it's not a ruse, he really is Lawful, even if that's not what he believes. Personal beliefs are immaterial, alignment is dictated by the sum of a characters actions.

On the other hand:

If he's simply doing Lawful things to maintain a cover in order to achieve an ultimately highly Chaotic ends, then it's still a ruse, and he would remain Chaotic. There does have to be some kind of end game though.

Note: This doesn't apply to Good vs. Evil. Doing evil things renders any outcome evil so the character would likely be Neutral or Evil. Whereas doing Good things to maintain an Evil cover still gets to be totally Evil. (Cityscape has a great example of this).

I disagree it applies equally to Law and Chaos. Now you can still have a Chaotic person acting in a lawful system. See: Shojo, but this character is not. His motivations aren't relevant, in the same way that a character who is doing Evil things out of fear is still doing Evil things.

[Vogonjeltz]

I disagree it applies equally to Law and Chaos. Now you can still have a Chaotic person acting in a lawful system. See: Shojo, but this character is not. His motivations aren't relevant, in the same way that a character who is doing Evil things out of fear is still doing Evil things.

I was saying it doesn't apply to good/evil because of the BoED rule about the greater good being a flawed incorrect viewpoint within the game.

[AMFV]

I was saying it doesn't apply to good/evil because of the BoED rule about the greater good being a flawed incorrect viewpoint within the game.

I wasn't disagreeing with that, I was extrapolating that the same rules likely apply to Law/Chaos that apply to Good/Evil, we have only one rules precedent, and that is the Good and Evil one so we should be able to extrapolate that the other axis works in a similar fashion.