Why is Alignment a Grid, Not a Gradient

[GreatWyrmGold]

On another website, I'm having a discussion about how alignment works in D&D. The other person seems convinced that alignment is a linear scale, with LG above NG above CG presumably above the neutral alignments presumably above LE above NE above CE. IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

[Zanos]

LG is not "more good" than CG any more than LE is "less evil" than CE.

The capacity for good or evil is equal among those spheres. He should keep in mind that the leader of a LE Empire is likely responsible for far more atrocities than the CE serial killer.

[P.F.]

No. No one has ever successfully used argument or logic to convince anyone of anything on the internet. However, the sheer volume of rules which describe alignment as being on two axes ("moral" for good/evil and "ethical" for law chaos) and the associated examples (such as the "one step" rule for clerics whose alignments differ from that of their deities) should be enough to convince yourself that you aren't crazy, the other person is simply wrong.

[Name1]

Well, to make it short, you could say that Ottis Toole is CE, being a serial killer, and Adolf Hitler is LE, being a dictator.
Now ask him: Who did worse things?

Of course, that doesn't make your point right, just his wrong.
The again, going right with the alignment system may require a divine spellcaster capable of level 9 spells... or a shadowcraft mage.

[BowStreetRunner]

You could point out that the alignments are essentially a set of keyword qualities that characters may possess. They either have them or they don't. There are two axes. On one axis you have Good > Neutral > Evil and on the other axis you have Lawful > Neutral > Chaotic. Every character must select one of the three options on each axis and this becomes their alignment (with the L>N>C axis coming before the G>N>E axis when naming their alignment).

[KillianHawkeye]

Maybe their first exposure to D&D was from 4th Edition and they just don't know any better?

[Erit]

Maybe their first exposure to D&D was from 4th Edition and they just don't know any better?

The most likely option. I know it was the case for me, and I couldn't make sense of the change in mechanics coupled with the adherence to naming conventions. My friend being determined to explain it as "Are you Republican or Democrat?" didn't help matters, but said friend is an idiot anyway.

[Darrin]

IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

No. The biggest, longest threads on this forum tend to be about alignment, because everyone can argue their own personal interpretation until the heatdeath of the universe and none of it ever changes anyone's mind one way or the other. (You can free up a lot of time for yourself by just ignoring any alignment-related threads.)

That being said... the "Four Corners" diagram that Gygax put in the AD&D rulebook largely exists because he loved the books written by Michael Moorcock and J.R.R. Tolkien, and he had a very kitchen-sink approach to designing his game worlds. The framework that includes both the war of Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil scratched his wargamer "structuralist" itch and allowed for a wider variety of narrative conflict in his world.

There's no compelling or over-arching reason to have either a two-axis or one-axis alignment system other than "to tell more interesting stories". That's all it's really there for. You can use it for other things (influencing player behavior, NPC motivation, etc.), but consistent implementation gets really messy and complicated.

[Troacctid]

The designers made a conscious choice to use a grid rather than a gradient in order to allow game mechanics to care about alignment in certain ways that would not work with a sliding scale.

[Deophaun]

For a fluff explanation, point him to the story of the Pact Primeval in the Fiendish Codex II:

On that day, the deities began to see that law and chaos were not the only principles in the universe. Good and evil were natural forces in the cosmos as well.

Law and Chaos were the original struggle. Good and Evil came later. And it was actually Asmodeus, of the not-so-bad Lawful Evil bent, who orchestrated the whole thing.

[P.F.]

Law and Chaos were the original struggle. Good and Evil came later. And it was actually Asmodeus, of the not-so-bad Lawful Evil bent, who orchestrated the whole thing.

In fact, as I recall AD&D (i.e., 1st edition) had only one alignment axis: Lawful or Chaotic. Good and Evil were only added in later editions.

[Sapreaver]

Isn't that why it's so important that good never triumph over evil or vice versa because than it goes to the law v chaos war where angels will fight eladrin. Or demons constantly fighting devils and then the universe is destroyed

[LudicSavant]

On another website, I'm having a discussion about how alignment works in D&D. The other person seems convinced that alignment is a linear scale, with LG above NG above CG presumably above the neutral alignments presumably above LE above NE above CE. IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

What alignment is has changed so dramatically and so many times throughout the editions (and even within editions, or sometimes even within the same book) that there's little point to arguing what the "true" version is. There is no true version because the canon is self-contradictory. People are just going around making up whatever version they're comfortable with and then pretending that it's canon based on some sufficiently vague statement (while ignoring other statements inconvenient to their viewpoint).

That's the #1 thing people have to get past: Thinking that any answer on alignment isn't effectively homebrew.

Well, to make it short, you could say that Ottis Toole is CE, being a serial killer, and Adolf Hitler is LE, being a dictator.

This always really bugged me.

If Ottis Toole got promoted to dictator, would he stop being Chaotic in your view? If Adolf Hitler never got farther than being an angry rebellious artist, would he stop being Lawful?

Seems to me like people just automatically assume that anyone granted the power to make laws is Lawful, and anyone who does objectionable things without having such rank is Chaotic. That doesn't seem like alignment as a cosmic measure of a person's character, but rather a reflection of their rank in a given subculture.

[Deophaun]

This always really bugged me.

If Ottis Toole got promoted to dictator, would he stop being Chaotic in your view? If Adolf Hitler never got farther than being an angry rebellious artist, would he stop being Lawful?

Seems to me like people just automatically assume that anyone granted the power to make laws is Lawful, and anyone who does objectionable things without having such rank is Chaotic. That doesn't seem like alignment as a cosmic measure of a person's character, but rather a reflection of their rank in a given subculture.

It's the problem as framing it Law vs Chaos, instead of Order vs Chaos. Law and chaos simply are not opposites, so the whole axis is borked.

[Fizban]

There's no compelling or over-arching reason to have either a two-axis or one-axis alignment system other than "to tell more interesting stories". That's all it's really there for. You can use it for other things (influencing player behavior, NPC motivation, etc.), but consistent implementation gets really messy and complicated.

Which is a pretty dang compelling reason. Say a story/game has (at least) three components: the PCs/protagonists, NPCs/antagonists, and the the story itself (the direction the campaign pushes through it's themes and setups and such). All three can be at different viewpoints, and the more that are in conflict the more complex the story. So your PCs can be CG, but they're in conflict with LN antagonists, and the campaign is urging them to be LG*. Having two axis doesn't just give you the four extremes, it also makes all half-Ns more distinct because they aren't just N. And even N/N in the middle becomes more distinct, because it shows that even on these two axis they still don't lean either way, suggesting a more significant apathy or wishy-washiness. With 9 possibilities and at least three influences on the story you end up with a lot of combinations.

If you only have one linear scale then you can only even get three different points if you count "neutral" as a distinct perspective rather than just being in the middle. That's how you get those old school "I'm True-Neutral^TM so I'm gonna switch sides every turn because balance!" types: an excuse to add a third viewpoint. There's only two extremes on a sliding scale, so they have to force neutral into an extreme to add complexity.

You can still have good stories when two of the three categories are already in agreement of course, there's just less time spent on those disagreements. It's actually preferable for a game that doesn't want to bother, like say, an old-school dungeon crawl. You only need a whole bunch of viewpoints for a more socially oriented game: without them your myriad factions don't have any actual disagreement as far as the game is concerned, and in a mechanics oriented game that's kindof a problem.


*For example, the campaign wants to be about improving an ordered but uncaring LN society into a LG one by slowly changing the leadership, but the PCs grew up on the streets and need to learn how to deal with the law even though they'd rather abolish it altogether. Note also that even in a player directed game there's still a campaign story/tone viewpoint: even if the players can choose their own path, those paths are harder or easier depending on the setting and mechanics. DnD itself pushes for violent conflict resolutions, which are inherently chaotic, thanks to it's focus on combat.

[2D8HP]

*sigh*

This again.

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976

Spoiler: illustrations

Show

illustration

illustration

illustration

illustration

illustration


illustration


illustration


illustration

THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

There will be a test.

[Morcleon]

It's the problem as framing it Law vs Chaos, instead of Order vs Chaos. Law and chaos simply are not opposites, so the whole axis is borked.

Yeah, but "Orderful" sounds silly.

[Fizban]

There will be a test.

Huh, nice to have such a thorough confirmation that 2 axis alignment was a deliberate choice and the "chaos=bad" simplification was rejected. There's only two bits that don't match up, the first: druids having to make human sacrifice and thus tilting towards evil, obviously something from older editions long since discontinued.

The second is humans tending toward lawful. This is wrong on two counts: one, because as the only point of reference is ourselves we must place the default human in the middle, the fact that we naturally form into groups does not indicates a tendency towards order (unless you want to include large swaths of the animal kingdom with us). Two, the vast majority of people even today really don't respect the law. They follow some because it makes sense, or to avoid inconvenience, but just as often they are ignored because there is no risk. When you consider a medieval based society, where it's even more obvious lawmakers have no accountability and far harder to prove wrongdoing (and thus more rulings are arbitrary), I really don't see a lawful tendency emerging. The primary lawful influence in our history would be religion, but in DnD there are literal gods of chaos so that's not gonna work.

[2D8HP]

It's the problem as framing it Law vs Chaos, instead of Order vs Chaos. Law and chaos simply are not opposites, so the whole axis is borked.

In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson,

which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

[Jay R]

In fact, as I recall AD&D (i.e., 1st edition) had only one alignment axis: Lawful or Chaotic. Good and Evil were only added in later editions.

AD&D 1e, which was not the first edition of D&D, had the 9-way alignment. When I read the description of what they meant in the 1e PHB, it seemed to me that only somebody with an INT and WIS of 16+ would subscribe to any of them, since they were philosophical theories, not simple codes:

The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

This is supposed to be the alignment of a ravening wolf. Nonsense.

The original D&D game, a few years earlier, had only one alignment axis. The alignment ends were called Law and Chaos, but in most respects, that meant Good and Evil.

A little history: Michael Moorcock wrote stories in which the forces of good (called "Law") were in eternal battle with the forces of evil (called "Chaos"). It was clear in the context of those stories that these were the embodiments of Goodness and Evil.

This idea was used in the 3-way alignment system in original D&D, because a system of morality or good vs. evil is a crucial part of nearly any fantasy epic, and therefore necessary in any attempt to simulate fantasy epics.

While the D&D alignments were called Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, the very few rules about them made it clear that they really meant Good, Neutral, and Evil. A high level cleric was a Patriarch if Lawful, or an Evil High Priest if Chaotic. The description of reversed clerical spells, and effects of clerics on undead, referred to evil clerics, not chaotic ones, etc.

But many players in the mid-70s, myself included, pointed out that "Lawful" doesn't mean "Good", and "Chaotic" doesn't mean "Evil".

So the developers at TSR had three choices:
1. Admit their mistake and change the D&D terms to Good and Evil,
2. Make the rules clear by explaining the gaming jargon and spelling out that Law and Chaos were being used in a specific sense of Good and Evil, or
3. Try to hide the mistake by inventing an unrealistic and overly complicated game mechanic.

For Gygax, this was always an easy choice.

[Grytorm]

Two, the vast majority of people even today really don't respect the law. They follow some because it makes sense, or to avoid inconvenience, but just as often they are ignored because there is no risk. When you consider a medieval based society, where it's even more obvious lawmakers have no accountability and far harder to prove wrongdoing (and thus more rulings are arbitrary), I really don't see a lawful tendency emerging. The primary lawful influence in our history would be religion, but in DnD there are literal gods of chaos so that's not gonna work.

Just wondering. What would you call custom? I'm not an expert on medieval law or anything. But I did take a class, and we talked a little about law.

The specific context was an English Village. And for the most part they handled a lot of crime internally. Land disputes, theft. Every man was part of a group of people, and if any of them caused trouble they were the ones supposed to find him.

[Elder_Basilisk]

In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson,

which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

This was also the metaphysical backdrop for Poul Anderson's Broken Sword (though there nearly all the characters were of Chaos while in Three Hearts and Three Lions, most of the characters were of Law).

Really, looking at the history and literary (especially the pulp) antecedents of D&D is the only way to make sense of D&D's alignment system--particularly when you go beyond the one paragraph alignment descriptions and start asking why particular creatures or cultures with well developed descriptions have the alignment they have. Why are elves chaotic good? Certainly not because any depiction of elves has consistently fit the Chaotic Good description. Elves are Chaotic Good because elves are archetypical creatures of Chaos in Poul Anderson's works and are on the side of Good in Lord of the Rings. Why are dwarves Lawful Good? Again, not because any description of dwarves fits the description of Lawful Good. Dwarves are Lawful Good because they are Lawful in Three Hearts and Three Lions and (often) on the side of Good in Lord of the Rings. Why are barbarians Chaotic? Certainly not because the things that characterize barbarian life (tradition and elders, etc) match the PHB description of Chaos. Barbarians are Chaotic because Robert E Howard and Edgar Rice Boroughs generally wrote Conan (and Solomon Kane and Kull, et al) and Tarzan as the noble savage representatives of barbarians in the struggle between civilization and Chaos. (Things get a little more complicated with Conan as King of Aquilonia but while his virtues make civilization work better, they are still barbarian virtues while civilization and Conan's enemies are associated with decadence).

If you went in, tabula rasa and tried to decide why X and Y creature/civilization/etc have alignment A and B based on the descriptions, you will generally find that, to the degree that PHB alignment descriptions are coherent and meaningful at all (to which the answer is, "not very much at all") they suggest different alignments for creature/civilization X, Y, and Z than the book does and that the more the PHB description and the creature's listed alignment line up, the less credible the creatures' culture and behaviors are. (Drow are a case in point, the closer their description aligns to the PHB Chaotic Evil definition, the less credible its origin and continued existence become and the more credible a description gets, the more problems there are with shoehorning them into Chaotic Evil alignment).

[trikkydik]

The only reason for alignment is because D&D uses magic.

(But for the sake of the argument, CHAOTIC and LAWFUL have nothing to do with GOOD and EVIL.)

If the law is inherently evil, what happens to the lawful good character?

IMO chaotic just means the character does things in their own way. The lawful character follows protocol.
Both have the same outcome, just different means of getting there.


Can I ask you a question?

"Why does it matter if LG is 'more' good than CG?"

[Coidzor]

On another website, I'm having a discussion about how alignment works in D&D. The other person seems convinced that alignment is a linear scale, with LG above NG above CG presumably above the neutral alignments presumably above LE above NE above CE. IS there any argument I could use to convince him otherwise, other than trying to explain how the alignment system works in small words?

They must have played 4E, then. Or fallen into a common trap which is part of what led to 4E to make the design choice they did when reinventing the system.

I'd just write them off as beyond help, or at the very least, a trollish waste of time, if the words of WOTC about why each Good and each Evil alignment are the most good or most evil don't sway them.

[Extra Anchovies]

Why are dwarves Lawful Good? Again, not because any description of dwarves fits the description of Lawful Good.

I have to disagree with you here. Dwarves in D&D are quite often portrayed as orderly and community-minded, with strong cultural emphases on tradition and placing family and society above the self, which seems solidly LG to me. Granted, this portrayal is likely just as much a result of their being chosen as Lawful Good as it is a cause.

Why are barbarians Chaotic? Certainly not because the things that characterize barbarian life (tradition and elders, etc) match the PHB description of Chaos.

The issue here is one of nomenclature. "Barbarian" originates as a term used by the classical Greeks to refer to cultures that did not adhere to Greek ways of life, mocking them by likening the speaking of their non-Greek languages to just saying "bar bar" all the time. It was definitely pejorative, often used to deride other Greeks as being not Greek enough. So really, we should discard the term "barbarian" altogether. If I could change one and only one thing about third edition, it would be renaming the Barbarian to the Berserker.

The Berserker can, in third edition, be of any non-Lawful alignment. This makes perfect sense, given the Berserker's tendency to allow rage and instinct to control their actions. Acting on the impulses and desires of the moment is the essence of Chaos as an alignment, so a Berserker is someone who willingly takes Chaotic actions in moments of great personal importance (i.e. combat). Such a character could hardly remain Lawful for long, even if they followed a strict warrior's code or set of traditions; Berserkers who do so would be Neutral on the law/chaos axis.

Cultures that don't adhere to classical Greek norms would not be entirely composed of Barbarians, despite how the Greeks may have seen them as such. A culture with a Berserker tradition would highly value the Berserker along with the physical power and connection to instinct the class exemplifies, but such a culture would still have a large non-Berserker population. Berserkers are a warrior class, limiting their usefulness to times of conflict between the culture and external groups, and when no such conflicts are ongoing there needs to be someone who knows how to grow a potato or build a longhouse.

This is supposed to be the alignment of a ravening wolf. Nonsense.

Looking at the behavior of animals, they generally A) prioritize themselves over others and B) act on whims rather than principles, which puts most of them at a very solid Chaotic Evil (yes, even cows; CE does not require violence). It wouldn't make sense for Paladins to run around slaughtering animals, hence the rule that animal intelligences ignore normal considerations for alignment and are locked to neutral.

[LudicSavant]

People should really consider tabooing their words when having alignment discussions (or any discussion where words have wildly different meanings depending on who you ask or in what context).

Really good words to make sure you are able to taboo are Objective, Subjective, Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, Order, Disorder, and any one-word synonyms for those words, because everyone seems to hear something different when hearing those words... which means that people aren't actually communicating, which is why alignment discussions usually don't get anywhere.

[Fizban]

Just wondering. What would you call custom? I'm not an expert on medieval law or anything. But I did take a class, and we talked a little about law.

The specific context was an English Village. And for the most part they handled a lot of crime internally. Land disputes, theft. Every man was part of a group of people, and if any of them caused trouble they were the ones supposed to find him.

Dunno what you mean by "custom" unless it's what you just described. That system isn't any better, if anything it's worse because instead of one nebulous lawmaker you can be "lawfully" attacked by any member of the group. It can still be a lawful system if the members are supposed to act according to an agreed upon set of rules, but it's still just as easily ignored if you know you can get away with it. More likely that you won't since instead of dodging the guards you have to dodge everyone, but still. If there are no set rules and all disputes are judged on their own merits, you have a chaotic system. Either way I don't' see a credible tendency on an instinctive level, in my uneducated opinion.

"Why does it matter if LG is 'more' good than CG?"

Not sure who you're asking or why, but I'll answer: because it's not. Lawful systems are inherently bad at dealing with things their laws don't yet cover, while chaotic systems are bad a dealing with large groups. As soon as you focus down to a smaller group or individual, LG inevitably is less good than CG since CG will care about the individual context of every conflict while LG must apply more general rules that must inevitably harm someone for trying to do the right thing. Since stories are about small groups or individuals, CG is always more good. Seriously, how many stories have you read where the main character never broke any laws, bucked any rules or conventions?

The correct answer for what is best is of course Neutral Good. A NG society will have a balance of laws that promote the common good, while dealing with certain disputes based on their own merits.

[Mechalich]

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

This final passage is extremely important. Many problems I've seen with alignment comes from the idea, presented in some D&D sources and much more common from 3e onward, that all of the alignments are equally common or something. That simply isn't the case, at least not among humans or really any of the core D&D races. In your average campaign world something like 90% or more of the humans will be lawful good or lawful neutral. A smaller number will be inconsistent types who have trouble with rules and are neutral good or true neutral. There will be a minor faction of nasty manipulators and self-serving schemers who qualify as lawful evil. All of the other alignments will be very rare. Chaotic Good characters are genuine good hearted free spirits who are unable to fit into a lawful society, Chaotic neutrals are even less organized and the majority of people who possess this alignment may have severe mental illnesses. Neutral evil and chaotic evil characters who are humans are almost definitional psychopaths and sociopaths.

Alignment is a messy system and has lots of problems. It's conflation of mental health and morality is one of the bigger ones and something that has grown a lot worse in the past forty years as society has changed. The presentation of the 'neutral' alignment in D&D fails to map to any of the common religious-based moral paradigms that inform the moral philosophy of essentially all D&D players (even if you're an atheist, if you live in a Western country, you almost certain subscribe to a Christian-based morality), which makes dealing with alignment alien to people who think in a good vs. evil format - compare to the light side vs. dark side in Star Wars, which is equally divisive, but much more intuitive. And the alignment system also creates the perverse scenario where the ultimate victory of good is a bad thing - because it robs the multiverse of its soul - and this obvious makes a lot of people confused.

On the other hand, alignment has led to some unique storytelling in D&D and the presentation of the planes and the exemplar outsider races and some other cool stuff so I think it has ultimately been beneficial to the game, but it needs to be deployed carefully and any group sound consider carefully whether they want to use alignment at all in a given campaign.

[LudicSavant]

So, people have been bringing up Gygax. If you want to get a good picture of why alignment is such a mess, one need look no further than Gary Gygax's take on it.

Gary has made his views on alignment even clearer than that old article in numerous Q&A sessions, such as the following:

The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NG opponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force might enslave them

Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide :lol:

(Note: That "old adage" is an infamous slogan used time and again throughout history to justify the wholesale slaughter of noncombatants, especially of native American women and children)

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...

Gary, seeing how you define Lawful Good, to what alignment would you ascribe the qualities of mercy, benevolence, and -- dare I say -- pacifism? Would you consider such traits Chaotic? Evil?

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment

With regard to pacifism . . . Only idocy or mental derangement could explain such absurd beliefs

Source: Gary Gygax's Q&A on OD&D alignment, here.

If you ask me, the main problem with alignment in later editions is that they haven't retreated from Gygax's ideas on the matter fast enough (nor have the writers ever been able to agree in which direction they should be retreating).

[Tectorman]

The Berserker can, in third edition, be of any non-Lawful alignment. This makes perfect sense, given the Berserker's tendency to allow rage and instinct to control their actions. Acting on the impulses and desires of the moment is the essence of Chaos as an alignment, so a Berserker is someone who willingly takes Chaotic actions in moments of great personal importance (i.e. combat). Such a character could hardly remain Lawful for long, even if they followed a strict warrior's code or set of traditions; Berserkers who do so would be Neutral on the law/chaos axis.

What about Wilders, who gain extra benefits to their psychic abilities when they let their emotions run away with them (which, except for the psychic component, is exactly the Barbarian/Berserker's MO), and can be as lawful as any Paladin?

Or, to bring in a Pathfinder example, the Wild Stalker archetype for the Ranger, who gets rage abilities just like the Barbarian and may be as lawful as he pleases?