Takes on Alignment!

[JaxGaret]

Regardless, what is right and what is wrong requires our brains with our experience and interpetation of reality to work with.

True. RL morality and D&D morality do have similarities, but they are not one and the same.

As for chaos and Evil: "Sowing chaos" is not a little sexual liberation or a few joints of weed at a party. Anarchy and the plague, on the other hand, which are definately Evil...yes.

Sowing chaos may very well be a little sexual liberation or a few joints of weed at a party. Chaos is not restricted to anarchy.

[Elennsar]

1) Right. If nothing else, in our world, it is generally held that killing is bad (if not evil), in D&D, it isn't held to be bad (canonically, at least).

2) Put it this way, when most people (outside D&D style alignments) refer to "sowing Chaos", they usually mean it in a Bad Way. I'm pretty sure that's what Kuro hadi n mind.

[JaxGaret]

1) Right. If nothing else, in our world, it is generally held that killing is bad (if not evil), in D&D, it isn't held to be bad (canonically, at least).

Right. That's one of the fundamental differences.

2) Put it this way, when most people (outside D&D style alignments) refer to "sowing Chaos", they usually mean it in a Bad Way. I'm pretty sure that's what Kuro hadi n mind.

Perhaps.  But we are having a discussion about D&D morality.

[Kuroimaken]

Perhaps.  But we are having a discussion about D&D morality.

Oh, fine. Replace it with "fomenting random destruction" then. Happy?

Well, that all depends on the "intensity" of alignment I was talking about before. Is killing 1 townsperson equivalent in Evil intensity to slaying 1 cultist in Good intensity?

And that's where things start to get weird. You start putting price tags on how Good/Evil some acts are ("Oh, I think that's a five on the puppy-killing scale"). D&D presents no such mechanic, it assumes common sense. It also doesn't point out that "killing isn't bad when it's killing bad guys", it assumes cinematic morality.

In short, D&D isn't suited for deep, moral play, just nitty-gritty good v. evil fantastic play.

[Prime32]

[AndyJames]

I don't get the "ends does not justifies the means" crowd. Say, for example:

Warrior is on a timeline. He has 4 hours to get to BBEG to get the antidote and save the King. Without the King, the country will fall into the hands of numerous Barons and Lords, and civil war is inevitable. This will lead to mass suffering and death and destruction.

All Warrior has to do it to cross a narrow bridge. If he crosses now, he will delay the refugees coming the other way. At least a few of them will die to the pursuing goblin horde. If he lets the refugees go first, he misses the 4 hour window.

What should he do (Note that this Warrior has an alignment of LG)?

[Kuroimaken]

The situation you presented allows only a choice between two evils. The classic argument of "ends versus means" assumes a choice (or capability of choice) that doesn't involve harming someone else. If the warrior HAS to choose and really does have no other alternative whatsoever, he'd probably choose the king rather than the people who would die to the pursuing horde. This doesn't make him evil, since he wasn't really given an alternative to begin with.

However, choosing between, say, uniting a country by sacrificing virgins to an Elder Evil or doing so through bloodless but painstaking politics would be valid for such an argument, because then he DOES have an alternative that doesn't involve evil. That is not to say someone who chooses the other method for almost any reason ("I just enjoy virgin sacrifices better" isn't a good reason, for example) is necessarily evil - but he's certainly not good.

[AndyJames]

For someone to say "the end *never* justifies the means, and if you use that, you are Evil" is very different from "It depends on the situation".

The point is this: You see only the former in the so-called "moral brigade", never the latter.

[Kuroimaken]

I never say never, lest I be proved wrong. Rules and exceptions and all that junk.

[AndyJames]

Then, I don't think we have a disagreement.

[Kuroimaken]

We don't indeed. 

[Shoggoth]

D&D morality doesn't have too much of an analog in modern-day morality, but it makes a lot more sense if you put it in perspective of the historical time that fantasy settings are always set - the Middle Ages.

Lawful - Doing what your Lord/Priest says to do
Chaotic - Working outside the bounds of the Church/State Law

Good - Christian
Evil - NOT Christian

Convert those pesky Turks and Saracens and whatnot into Orcs and Trolls and *POOF* you have D&D.  Except that rather than squatting in the holy land, those pesky trolls like to hang out in dungeons full of gold and magic swords.

Of course, SAYING that in the context of a modern game makes you a bigot, so we have to assume that the good guys are all upstanding guys (Kobold baby murder aside) and the Orcs and Trolls like to roast human babies over a spit just for fun, then shoot them out of slingshots for kicks.  We can debate the relative morality of it for days (see above graphic, which is awesome!), but ultimately it comes down to the fact that D&D is a game of killing other beings and taking their crap, and a bullshit black and white moral structure takes all of that pesky soul searching and ambiguity out of it.

[Agrippa]

My take on alignment is in some part based off of how 1st Edition AD&D approached it, with my own sensiblities added in. I'd just like to know what you think.

Chaotic Good:Neutral Good:Lawful Good: While strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of Lawful Good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal, not to cause suffering in it's name. Only through the group can any individual gain security and meaningful position. Certain freedoms, such as rights to private property, must of course, be sacrificed to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good will, or disregard for life and intentional cruelty, the Chaotic Neutral places the personal freedom of each individual. Whether these individual choices lead to good results or ill is beside the point. Chaotic Neutral creatures disregard all authority unless compelled by the circumstances. While Chaotic Neutrals believe in personal responsibility, they consider both compassion and willful cruelty to be abject folly. A Chaotic Neutral neither goes out of their way to benefit strangers or cause harm.

True Neutral:Lawful Neutral:Chaotic Evil:Neutral Evil: The Neutral Evil creature views Law and Chaos as unnecessary considerations, for he seeks the greatest benefit both within the group and without it. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum benefit to himself.

Lawful Evil:Good
I'm not sure where the heroes of the Final Fantasy would fit in here. If anyone has any ideas just post them.
Chaotic Good
Katara, Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Agatha Heterodyne, the Tenth Doctor and Zeetha
Neutral Good
Granny Weatherwax, Susan Sto Helit, Shepard Book and Krosp I
Lawful Good
Superman/Clark Kent and Captain Carrot Ironfounderson

Morally Neutral
Chaotic Neutral
Captain Jack Sparrow, what Captain Mal wishes he could be and Jayne Cobb (with slight Evil tendencies)
True Neutral
The CMOT Dibbler of Discworld
Lawful Neutral
Havelock Vetinari and Baron Wulfenbach

Evil
Chaotic EvilDiscworldNeutral Evil
Final Fantasy VII Sephiroth, the Master (of Doctor Who), Adlai Nishka and Saffron (from Firefly)
Lawful Evil
Darth Vader, the Operative, the Auditors of Reality, Davros and his Daleks

[Kuroimaken]

Chaotic Good
Katara, Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Agatha Heterodyne, the Tenth Doctor and Zeetha

I thought we'd already established that Batman has all the goddamn alignments.

[Agrippa]

Chaotic Good
Katara, Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Agatha Heterodyne, the Tenth Doctor and Zeetha

I thought we'd already established that Batman has all the goddamn alignments.

It depends upon which version you're talking about. So, how do the others fit, based my definitions and Wizards of the Coast's definitions?

[Kuroimaken]

Chaotic Good
Katara, Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Agatha Heterodyne, the Tenth Doctor and Zeetha

I thought we'd already established that Batman has all the goddamn alignments.

It depends upon which version you're talking about. So, how do the others fit, based my definitions and Wizards of the Coast's definitions?

I think the only part I somewhat disagree with is the Lawful Evil angle. For me, a Lawful Evil character is either an evil individual with a set of particularly strong (and possibly behavior-restraining) beliefs, or someone who uses the rules to actively bring harm, but without breaking them when convenience strikes (thus marking the difference between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil).

Your definition of Lawful Evil (at least the part of individual freedom being less important than the status quo) is closer, for me, to Lawful NEUTRAL, since my understanding of Lawful Neutral is that Good and Evil are irrelevant as long as order is mantained.

[Agrippa]

Actually my take on Lawful Evil is that of willfull and intentional cruelty on behalf of the group. While Lawful Neutrals can and often times will be ruthless, they don't intend to be cruel. Those of Lawful Evil alignment do. Evilly aligned characters are ruthless to the point of seeing mercy and compassion as signs of weakness. This is true even if the character has any regret about his or her actions.

Good: The best way to achive your ends is through protecting the innocent from harm and showing them compassion and kindness. You are not however obligated to be nice, show restraint when fighting their would be exploiters or play fair. You're a force for good and righteousness, not a boy scout.

Neutral: You are neither kind nor cruel, merciful or merciless. You can be one or the other if need be, but otherwise you simply are. This doesn't matter whether you are a force for anarchy and the individual or for order and the group.

Evil: The best way to achive your ends is through ruthlessness and brutality. Mercy is a sign of weakness.

[veekie]

You know, from a history perspective, Law and Chaos's association with good and evil are interesting. In untamed environments, where the outside world is the threat, Law is a beacon of hope, the salvation of the weak. In tamed, civilised lands, Law is the threat, the world is ordered, and order focuses power of command on a few, corrupt the system and everyone under the system is in for it now, while similarly being subsumed into a greater order is just as large a threat. In this rigidity, Chaos saves the day, breaking the system, reducing it's power to managable levels, such that the corrupt order can be destroyed or repaired.