Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hmm. In Moorcock there was Law and Chaos, but I think there was supposed to be a balance between the two. Not sure what I'm thinking of then, to be honest.

Nonetheless, Chaotic Good has never made sense to me, it seems that the things that are supposed to make it "Chaotic" are all too superficial to have any cosmic relevance.

Gwar! wrote:Likewise you can be Chaotic Good, you help others wherever you can, but don't do it out of a sense of duty, you do it because you feel like it.

Now that's just being a goody little two-shoes. Chaotic good is more when you chop down a tree to save the kitty or nuke the bus with hostages to get rid of the baddies in there.

Here's my issue with it:

No human can be a good person without some kind of moral code, or standard of behavior (not in the sense D&D defines good). Is the only difference between CG and LG how flexible this code is? That doesn't make much sense, it would be purely organizational, not warranting a cosmic definition equal to good evil. It's not used as the difference between pragmatism and idealism anyway, because pragmatism is a trait of True Neutral, not either ethic.

It's rarely used as being tied to the laws of the land, because it's treated as an elemental force that exists outside of society's constructs.

All I get as the difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is "one follows their moral code, the other follows their moral compass", which is exactly the same thing.

No. Lawful Good (also Known as Lawful Stupid) is when you go with what your superiors tell you because they tell you that it is the right thing to do, so you do not question it.

Chaotic Good is when you say "feth you" and do what you believe the right thing is.

Very Different.

if you have a chance to grab the 3.5e Players handbook, there are some very good descriptions in there... Hell I'll give them now.

Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Soverliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron’s tax collectors, is chaotic good. Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honour and compassion.

I heard Bob Ross plays Vampire Counts

Gwar! wrote:No. Lawful Good (also Known as Lawful Stupid) is when you go with what your superiors tell you because they tell you that it is the right thing to do, so you do not question it.

I disagree.

Not every Lawful Good person has superiors. Paladins often operate independently, and they're the epitome of Lawful Good. How about an ancient Gold Dragon? Is he stupid (Int 28 or something?), and doing what his superiors tell him to do?

Furthermore, your definition makes "Law" worthless as a cosmic concept, it's entirely based around material power. Lawfulness is objective, it can only be based on obedience to authority if that authority is established as being legitimate through an objective means.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No. Lawful Good (also Known as Lawful Stupid) is when you go with what your superiors tell you because they tell you that it is the right thing to do, so you do not question it.

I disagree.

Not every Lawful Good person has superiors. Paladins often operate independently, and they're the epitome of Lawful Good. How about an ancient Gold Dragon? Is he stupid (Int 28 or something?), and doing what his superiors tell him to do?

Furthermore, your definition makes "Law" worthless as a cosmic concept, it's entirely based around material power. Lawfulness is objective, it can only be based on obedience to authority if that authority is established as being legitimate through an objective means.

Yeah, you are right there. I was not trying to adress "Law" as a cosmic thing, but rather the microcosm of Mortal Civilisations.

Law implies Order, Structure. You utilise this structure to help improve the lives of others. Chaotic Good is more about living for yourself, and if you happen to help others along the way, so be it.

I actually had a little bit of a brainwave, and thought up of a nice easy way to describe a Lawful Good and Chaotic Good person (again, in the Microcosm that is Mortal Lives).

A Man is Arrested unjustly for a crime he did not commit.
The Lawful Good Character will petition the Judges, go through the proper Legal channels, follow the letter of the law in order to help this man, even if it seems hopeless.
The Chaotic Good Character will blow a hole in the wall of the Jail and Bust you out.

BrookM wrote:I heard Bob Ross played Vampire Counts

Fixed, as he is currently dead.

Gwar! wrote:Yeah, you are right there. I was not trying to adress "Law" as a cosmic thing, but rather the microcosm of Mortal Civilisations.

Law implies Order, Structure. You utilise this structure to help improve the lives of others. Chaotic Good is more about living for yourself, and if you happen to help others along the way, so be it.

But when start taking Law as meaning organization and predictability it ceases to become a matter of ethics.

Note that the 3.0 PHB says something along the lines of "While dogs may be loyal and cats free-spirited they lack the intelligence to truly make ethical decisions" (This being the rationale for Int 1 and 2 creatures always being True Neutral. Once again, paraphrasing, I no longer have the book.)

Also, caring about yourself more than others is one of the main differences between Good and Evil. What you imply is that Chaotic Good individuals can never be as good as their Lawful counterparts, which seems odd.

I actually had a little bit of a brainwave, and thought up of a nice easy way to describe a Lawful Good and Chaotic Good person (again, in the Microcosm that is Mortal Lives).

A Man is Arrested unjustly for a crime he did not commit.
The Lawful Good Character will petition the Judges, go through the proper Legal channels, follow the letter of the law in order to help this man, even if it seems hopeless.
The Chaotic Good Character will blow a hole in the wall of the Jail and Bust you out.

What if the Lawful Good character does not see the government of the country he is in as being legitimate? What if blowing a hole in the wall would cause harm to others (Jailbreak!)?

Look at a more complex character as an example of where the system breaks down; say, Rorschach, from The Watchmen. He has worked for the government and against it. He is pragmatic in the extreme if it means he will be able to do what he sees as right, but completely uncompromising at other times. He both plans and improvises pretty well. He essentially follows his moral code regardless of what happens around him. Where does he fit on the scale? He fits the description for Lawful Good is closer than Chaotic, but he largely ignores the rest of society. He could be Neutral Good, but only as an alternative to the other two not fitting.

Law and Chaos seem to be two overly-large categories made of traits that aren't necessarily linked. For instance:
Respect for the authority of the place you live
Refusal to lie or deceive
Commitment to your morality
Pragmatism (which actually seems to be more of a trait of neutrality than anything)
Ability to plan
Ability to improvise
Ability to see the consequences of your actions
Caring about others vs. yourself (more of a trait of Good and Evil)
Fundamental principle of the universe based on chance/spontaneity versus structure/predictability

Only the last one is really sensible as an objective, cosmic force.

In my experience (which is, of course, anecdotal) alignment in D&D has historically been either ignored or used as a tool to railroad players. The D&D setting as-written has quite a number of 'oddities' in it and alignment is definitely one of them. It's a concept that kind of works in a very 'wargame' sense where Alignment is another trait for effects to key off of, but it tends to work poorly if you're trying to think of the game world as actually working...

Gwar! wrote:

Balance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I mean, in 4th edition you cannot be Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good anymore, that's how dumbed down it is.

I'm guessing your comment is sarcasm, but consider that a vast number of RPGs don't have alignments at all.

No, it isn't sarcasm at all. The Alignment system in D&D is a major part of what made D&D, D&D. Removing it is like digging up Gygax and Arneson and pissing on their corpses. The whole of 4th edition is like that basically.

And thats just 1 of many changes they made to dumb it down, but I'll not force this any more off topic than it already is.

As both Gary and Dave have said more than a few times "It's just a game." Besides, Gary has had little or nothing to do with D&D since he was booted from TSR back in the good ol days of BADD. He did other games, games without alignment (although they had tons of other weird things).

4e is a solid game and has managed to get us playing D&D again. We quit soon after 3e came out, because it stopped being D&D for us. 4e is not dumbed down, it's different, and to us, it feels more like 2e. And instead of one fight with lots of rules arguments, we can get through 3-4 combats in a night (each with 3-4 times the number of participants) and still have a few hours left over for actual roleplaying. But I suppose having fun is badwrong or something and we're supposed to love rules that make no sense and allow for peasant railguns.


Anyway, back on topic, ever wonder why GW doesn't ask these celebrity players to show up at events? I;m certain that the cost of having one of thes eguys show up and play would be more than made up for in the publicity gained.

-John

Woah, it is like being back on my old NWN PW forums.

Nasty.

Must..avoid..philosophical..debate...

O.K. I can't resist. But only a few brief bits, as I'm at work...

Don't confuse good and evil, as a moral judgement, with law and chaos, which is not. All are defined by the person(s) making that judgement, and really have no basis on a 'cosmic concept', as they are not universally true. Even on our own planet, you'll find people who feel that differ as to what qualifies as either. What you consider good, or evil, will likely vary from what I consider each to be.

As for law and chaos, these are not universal. If they were, things that were legal in Vegas would be legal everywhere. But when it comes down to it, I really don't put them on the opposite sides of the same scale. It should be more Law vs. Anarchy, and order vs chaos. But neither of those sound good when you're trying to sell a book or concept. Law and anarchy is what society has, as a majority decided is allowed and what is not allowed. It's a majority opinion on ethics, and a social structure put into place to ensure that people follow it. Order vs Chaos is rigidity, and systematic process with constant, consistent processes (and typically results) vs ones that are random, whimsical, and very free floating, usually leaving a vast set of potential results, which does tend to lead to more incidental damage, as by nature it's a bit more risky. Order vs. Chaos is where you'll likely find more of a universal truth, if there is any to be found, as one can examine a system, and determine how random it is. Of course what really fun is that order and chaos work best when they're working togethor.

As for D&D, law vs chaos really was intended as a follow societies laws or not. Hence why the originally didn't allow rogueish sorts to be lawful. (I go back before 1st edition...)

Anyhow, I'm not sure if I should be asking how, or why, this became a philosophical debate off a question about if celebrities play GW games...

Um... I wasn't really talking about anything outside of D&D.

Also, "society" is not one thing. There are many different nations, guilds, families, religions, etc that all have different - and often conflicting - rules, and the subjectivity of those rules does not match up with Law as a cosmic force. (Plus, now, criminals can be lawful.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:(Plus, now, criminals can be lawful.)

Yes, its called "Organised Crime". A guy who robs random houses is Chaotic, a Mafia Group is Lawful.

But they both go against what society expects of them.

Thus, Lawfulness cannot be based entirely on that.

Besides, being organized isn't related to ethics. Bees are organized, the system prohibits them from having an alignment.

I've heard that Gary Gygax definitely didn't play 40K.


IB4Lock.

God Of Yams wrote:

BrookM wrote:I heard Bob Ross played Vampire Counts

Fixed, as he is currently dead.

I'm intrigued by your use of the word currently. Is he going to be raised as a zombie at any point?

If so it would make his choice of army very apt.

Chrispy wrote:I've heard that Gary Gygax definitely didn't play 40K.


IB4Lock.

Thank god for finally bringing this thread back on track... XD

LuciusAR wrote:

God Of Yams wrote:

BrookM wrote:I heard Bob Ross played Vampire Counts

Fixed, as he is currently dead.

I'm intrigued by your use of the word currently. Is he going to be raised as a zombie at any point?

If so it would make his choice of army very apt.

I hope it's a Vampire Counts army led by Vampire Lord Ross.
If he was a vampire, would his trees still be happy?

...Back on track, what was the name of the documentary someone mentioned earlier in which Will Smith had Warhammer stuff in the background?

God Of Yams wrote:
I hope it's a Vampire Counts army led by Vampire Lord Ross.
If he was a vampire, would his trees still be happy?

Yes. They would yearn for blood, but in a very happy, mellow way.

I believe Bob Ross is the bizarro twin of Konrad, though they both seem to have a love for art in common.

BrookM wrote:I believe Bob Ross is the bizarro twin of Konrad, though they both seem to have a love for art in common.

Which one has the goatee?

(Edit) My bad, it's obviously Bob

By the by Gwar, you didn't read EVERY D&D book it would seem. The original D&D (not AD&D) only had the Lawful/Chaotic alignment axis.

Wehrkind wrote:By the by Gwar, you didn't read EVERY D&D book it would seem. The original D&D (not AD&D) only had the Lawful/Chaotic alignment axis.

Oh, my apologies for not reading a tiny thin paperback book that was out of print long before I was even Born, but instead reading every book from AD&D onwards. How could I be so Selfish!

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Wait, didn't D&D originally have "Law" as good and "Chaos" as evil?

Or am I thinking of something else? (No, not Warhammer. )

Naw, having read all the D&D books (I have a first print run AD&D book from before I was even born) there has always been the 9 Alignment system where Law meant a Code of Honour or Strict rules, Chaos meant anarchy or free spirit, Good means Altruism and caring for others, and evil was selfishness etc.

Just because something is "lawful" doesn't mean they are good. You might be part of a Mafia. They would be classed as "Lawful Evil". They are evil, but they have rules, and codex. Likewise you can be Chaotic Good, you help others wherever you can, but don't do it out of a sense of duty, you do it because you feel like it.

This is false. The first book (and later red book) original D&D all have a three alignment system: lawful, neutral, and chaotic.

I have my copies stored away. I first played them in '81-82.

It's really hard to state any specific rules as 'sacred cows' of D&D by this point. It's had more editions than you can shake a stick at in the 30+ years it's been around and every edition seems to have changed a few major components for one reason or another.

Is 4th edition the same game as 3.0/3.5? Definitely not... But the secret is: It's a good game. In a lot of ways it's kind of what I think 40k could use: A game that is true to the spirit but worked to heavily integrate rules and think about things that didn't work as well as people intended in previous editions.

D&D has pretty much always needed some world-specific editing, as going by a literal rules-as-written version of the world tends to break. There's enough high-level clerics around that no one with money would stay dead for long unless they tick off someone with access to disintegration magic or similar. Magic seems to grow on street corners and Paladins can guard against most of the major threats since they can detect evil at will. Oh, and the economy is really odd...

4th edition still keeps a lot of this as, to be honest, the game is meant to focus on classic dungeon-crawling. There's a lot of 'niche protection' and the power curves of different classes have been smoothed out. One major issue with previous editions is that various classes really became almost useless after the lower levels: Who needs a thief when you have a high-level mage with knock, mage hand, and a half-dozen other tricks at hand?

The biggest minus is that the game is certainly combat-focused. OTOH, D&D has never really had a lot of really usable social rules. They're often there, but tend to produce weird results and just aren't that fun. Still, making fun puzzles and such is about the same difficulty as previous editions. It's possible even easier as characters aren't as likely to have access to party-wide spells for flight, water breathing, and similar.

Yes, there's some MMO-inspired elements. The most noticeable is all classes are assigned to one of 4 roles. I was a bit wary about this, but I think it's a good thing as it makes it a bit easier to have a 'functional' party with more options. For example, the game I'm in (currently on hiatus) I'm playing a Paladin which is a Defender class. If he croaks, I'll probably consider all the Defender classes available. This includes the class Fighter as well as some newer ones like the Warden. In 3.0, we found that you really wanted to fill the 'core classes' (Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief) at low levels before people jumped into the weirder classes. The classes are all balanced to the 4 roles so they play differently yet are still interchangeable.

I don't think 4th edition D&D is the one true RPG (It's intended for a very specific niche), but I can't deny it's fun!

So much for staying on topic.....

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Wait, didn't D&D originally have "Law" as good and "Chaos" as evil?

Or am I thinking of something else? (No, not Warhammer. )

Naw, having read all the D&D books (I have a first print run AD&D book from before I was even born) there has always been the 9 Alignment system where Law meant a Code of Honour or Strict rules, Chaos meant anarchy or free spirit, Good means Altruism and caring for others, and evil was selfishness etc.

Just because something is "lawful" doesn't mean they are good. You might be part of a Mafia. They would be classed as "Lawful Evil". They are evil, but they have rules, and codex. Likewise you can be Chaotic Good, you help others wherever you can, but don't do it out of a sense of duty, you do it because you feel like it.

sorry, you are a bit wrong.. the original d&d books, the single colored paper books that were in the basic edition, etc had 3 alignments..

Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. this was of course upgraded in the AD&D..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)
"The game's alignment system from the original 1974 boxed set initially featured only Law, Neutrality and Chaos, with Law generally equating to Good and heroism, and Chaos implying anarchy and Evil; however, the good/evil parallels were not strongly defined. Initially, dwarves were Lawful and elves Chaotic, while humans could be of any of the three alignments."

intially it was good vs evil (law vs chaos) but that changed as the editions changed.

edit: (sorry CTGamer, somehow I missed your post on my first read through.. I just added more info to back up our point)

Andy Chambers infected Blizzard with the Warhammer virus again.

Now quit bringing D&D into this you satanic spawns!