Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132821Isn't selfish a vice tho? I would say it falls under Evil and not in the middle.

In the context of the Palladium system being Good means you will be out for helping others and not necessarily breaking the law to do so. Selfish characters are the likes of Han Solo or at the other extreme being like Jack Sparrow from Pirates of The Carribean. Evil characters are either Aberrant or Miscreant. Aberrant characters are akin to Lawful Evil characters in D&D. Miscreant characters are the worst offenders in all of the worlds they inhabit.

100% agree with the tin, and haven't used alignment since after the first one or two years of running my own games. Back in the early 90's. I used to enforce alignment at first (particularly cuz some classes had alignment restrictions and presumably some of their class abilities were supposed to be balanced out by alignment requirements), but that just led to disruptions in my campaigns (caused mostly by me). I eventually realized that alignment were too subjective and unworkable as absolutes, particularly from a game play PoV, so I simply decided to get rid of them (along with Paladins, since they relied too much on alignment restriction to balance their class benefits) and let everyone play however they wanted.

Law and Chaos in particularly are tricky concepts, because they rely too much on context to determine what is "lawful" or "chaotic". And characters of either alignment can easily have traits that arguably belong to the opposite. A rebellious/anarchistic character, in particular, can be completely loyal to their family and friends (a lawful trait), or rigidly dedicated to a particular ideal (more lawful traits), while being completely opposed to a tyrannical system and dedicated to its destruction (chaotic). But what happens if that character wins out and overthrows the tyrannical government, then institutes a system founded on the principles of liberty and opposition to slavery, where he/she becomes a leader and lawmaker? Does the rebellious (and by extension "chaotic") character now become "lawful" because he/she writes the laws of the land, or do they remain "chaotic" due to their dedication to liberty? What if they become a champion of their new government and starts waging wars on other governments to impose their ideals on neighbors they don't approve of and "liberating" those lands by imposing their new government's rules on them? And what about the "knights" of that government, who rigidly uphold its laws and fight on its wars?

I simplify all these questions by simply stating that "alignment" is completely irrelevant and what actually matters are what actual values a character have, or what their personality traits are. I don't care if the character identifies as "lawful" or "chaotic". I care that among their personality traits they are: 1) Loyal to friends and family; 2) Oppose Tyranny and Slavery, 3) Are dedicated/loyal to their new government, etc. Those are the traits that are actually relevant in actual RP, not whether the character has behaved "lawful" or "chaotic" enough to still remain on either alignment, or to pretend that they're somehow "neutral" because they have conflicting traits (at least from the PoV of D&D alignment), when in reality they have strong stances and opinions on all of this stuff, so by definition can't be neutral.

And while some might argue that certain attitudes are inherently "lawful" in D&D terms, even if the character operates outside the law, such as mafia types who still follow the "rules" of the underworld, that's entirely a "Well, that's just, like, your opinion...man" philosophical discussion that is guaranteed to bring a game session to a screeching halt rather than have any actual practical application in gameplay, unless everyone at the table just agrees with each other like mindless drones. Which is why alignment doesn't work. Even if you can argue on its favor the reality still remains that what constitutes X or Y alignment is a matter of opinion and you can't effectively enforce that in actual play. So they completely fail as role-playing tools in practice.

Quote from: Slambo;1132828Even though i dont like it as a game, i like the language age of sigmar uses for this

Death - Order - Destruction - Chaos

Death is extreme order where nothing ever changes, and destruction is more...hedonistic i guess, its like violence for the sake of violence.

Link to game..? Never heard of it.

Quote from: arcanuum;1132832In the context of the Palladium system being Good means you will be out for helping others and not necessarily breaking the law to do so. Selfish characters are the likes of Han Solo or at the other extreme being like Jack Sparrow from Pirates of The Carribean. Evil characters are either Aberrant or Miscreant. Aberrant characters are akin to Lawful Evil characters in D&D. Miscreant characters are the worst offenders in all of the worlds they inhabit.

Yeah, Palladium alignment is realistic...it tries to actually pigeon-hole PCs into categories real people might actually be in. Was always partial to Aberrant because I'm a hardcore Dr. Doom fanboy...yes a terrible person, but you can respect the dude.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132794What the tin says.

The first problem is with making an alignment based of Order (Law) and Chaos, those aren't moral choices per se, imagine you're in Nazi Germany, there's an order/law that puts Jews, Gypsies, Gays and other people the government deems undesirable into concentration/extermination camps. A revolt (chaos) would be  good thing as long as you don't target innocent people. On the other hand obeying the law (following orders anyone?) would be a bad thing.

So they should have started with Good vs Evil and no, you can't be neutral here, you can be mostly one or the other falling occasionally on the other side because you're only "human".

From there you could, if you wanted, felt it was needed (I don't) add Order and Chaos to give I don't know what to the characters.

To me it feels mostly as a straight jacket than a good tool unless you're going for the Black and White view of the world, very valid option for your setting in my eyes.

I think a missing piece in your analysis might be the question of which law "Lawful" applies to. I think Reckall was getting at this idea:

Quote from: Reckall;1132827Exactly. Let's not forget how from the "broken" D&D aligment they created Planescape - one of most complex philosophical (in a good sense) settings around.

Anyway Nazi Germany should be lawful evil - maybe the best embodiment ever of the concept.

Shrieking Banshee did too:

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1132805Doesn't it originate from Gary Gygax's objectivism? I'm not judging the man if he was, it's just what I heard.

If D&D clerics are Christian with the serial numbers filed off, for example, a Lawful cleric could hardly obey God's law and Hitler's simultaneously (and remain in good graces with God, anyway). Lawful/Lawful Good obeys some larger law of morality that may or may not align with human law (Jesus was quite the human lawbreaker if I remember right), whereas Lawful Evil has an internal consistency that contrasts it with Chaos and uses the law like a tool to further its own selfish ends.

I guess in other words, rather than necessarily being a straight jacket, it's a layer with defaults. I suspect most western players are going to default to a Judeo-Christian feel of "Lawful" with some amount of leaning on the laws of man, but if you wanted to introduce an alternative guiding morality layered overtop the laws of the land, you could. I think that idea comes out a little bit both in the LE deities as well as in the Eldritch/Cthulhu mythos.

I dunno. Just spitballing. Not a theologist or a philosopher.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1132836If D&D clerics are Christian with the serial numbers filed off, for example, a Lawful cleric could hardly obey God's law and Hitler's simultaneously (and remain in good graces with God, anyway). Lawful/Lawful Good obeys some larger law of morality that may or may not align with human law (Jesus was quite the human lawbreaker if I remember right), whereas Lawful Evil has an internal consistency that contrasts it with Chaos and uses the law like a tool to further its own selfish ends.

I guess in other words, rather than necessarily being a straight jacket, it's a layer with defaults. I suspect most western players are going to default to a Judeo-Christian feel of "Lawful" with some amount of leaning on the laws of man, but if you wanted to introduce an alternative guiding morality layered overtop the laws of the land, you could. I think that idea comes out a little bit both in the LE deities as well as in the Eldritch/Cthulhu mythos.

I dunno. Just spitballing. Not a theologist or a philosopher.

Law in this case would be the Laws of God (capital G), not some sort of old school Catholicism where there's a hierarchy of leadership between man and God. Actually, that would be some interesting gaming...a Paladin going against the Church because he literally knows the Truth as he's inspired by God.

Quote from: Brad;1132838Law in this case would be the Laws of God (capital G), not some sort of old school Catholicism where there's a hierarchy of leadership between man and God. Actually, that would be some interesting gaming...a Paladin going against the Church because he literally knows the Truth as he's inspired by God.

Joan of Arc, for example?

Quote from: Brad;1132826D&D uses two axis, Warhammer is one.

LG NG CG
LN  N  CN
LE  NE CE

vs.

Law-Good-Neutral-Evil-Chaos

Basically Law is an extreme form of Good, I guess. Also, most people are Neutral because they're self-interested.

This also the 4e D&D alignment system. Lawful Good was just a more extreme form of Good and Chaotic Evil was just a more extreme version of Evil. There were no Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil alignments in 4e.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1132839Joan of Arc, for example?

Real-world example, yeah. Joan of Arc would be a pretty cool solo Paladin campaign.

If I remember correctly Alignment was created in DnD as a way to stop the original Asshats from trolling their own party.  No you can not betray and rob Bill because you have a Good character.  Oh you have an Evil character, well guess he is an NPC now sorry.

The whole Law - Chaos axis appears to be ripped from the Elric books and then when smashed together with Good - Evil gives us the ADnD Alignment.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132820You might be able to describe everything using those archetypes, doesn't mean they translate well into the game without becoming a straight jacket for the character, a list of what you can't do instead of what you can do.

I think you are describing the difference bwteen Ethics and Morality, a list of Commandments would be a particularly Lawful thing to want from your Alignment.

Quote from: Brad;1132838Law in this case would be the Laws of God (capital G), not some sort of old school Catholicism where there's a hierarchy of leadership between man and God. Actually, that would be some interesting gaming...a Paladin going against the Church because he literally knows the Truth as he's inspired by God.

Paksenarrion is always my go to example, except that she was never tied to the Church to begin with.

Quote from: Shasarak;1132847If I remember correctly Alignment was created in DnD as a way to stop the original Asshats from trolling their own party.

The Law and Chaos alignments come originally from Chainmail. They were basically the factions that each player used to build their army, with Neutral troops fighting on either side. When Arneson started playing his Blackmoor game, he treated it as simply as a good/evil axis where Chaos were the baddies and Neutral was described as selfish.

I wouldn't say that Gygax added Good and Evil axis in AD&D. It was more like he renamed Law & Chaos to Good & Evil and then added a Law and Chaos axis on top of that.

But you're basically right in that enforcing Alignment was a way to prevent players from getting all the benefits of being Good (i.e good people don't try to kill them) while acting evil when nobody was looking. The question is whether or not it was "You're Good therefore you can't do that" or "If you do that you're character will become Evil". The XP penalty for changing alignment was simply a method to prevent players from switching sides back and forth whenever it was advantageous to do so.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132794The first problem is with making an alignment based of Order (Law) and Chaos, those aren't moral choices per se, imagine you're in Nazi Germany -

I must have missed the bit in the DMG where they talked about running medieval fantasy campaigns in mid-20th century Europe.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1132868I must have missed the bit in the DMG where they talked about running medieval fantasy campaigns in mid-20th century Europe.

   And one of the two sources that inspired the Law/Chaos alignment axis, Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions (which also gave us the paladin and the troll), identifies the Nazis with Chaos.

God not this old fallacy thread... again.

I use Law / Neutral / Chaos in my OD&D. FOR ME, alignment is not about morals, but about how your PC views the value of civilization. A Lawful character champions civilization, even warts and all. A Neutral may be more interested in "doing good", or being selfish, or just surviving and being left alone. A Chaotic sees no true value in civilization. It's a sucker's game to them.  

Yes, Lawful characters will often obey "evil orders" and that's a feature, not a bug. That's why Neutral exist as a choice. However, when seeking the help of civilization, a Lawful character has an advantage.

And Chaotic leaders exist because warlords can often rise in power within civilization. And some may even be more successful as leaders since they aren't bound by law, tradition or cultural mores. But they can't be trusted by their subjects.

Here's what I tell my players:
Pick Lawful if you like being trusted and you're cool with moral conundrums.
Pick Chaos if you like being an outsider and you're cool with being distrusted.
Pick Neutral if you don't care about alignment.