The problem with Neutral in any axis you can dream of is (as far as I know) that in game terms it means you give exactly the same importance to either extreme, why? because to give exactly zero is Nirvana, and IMHO as implemented in the games (again as far as I know) it's a poor man's imitation of it.

The second problem is they started (for whatever reason) with Law (A poor substitute for Order IMHO) vs Chaos, and like I said from the start those aren't moral choices per se; so IMHO they should have started with Good vs Evil. And, unless you're an objectivist or a libertarian Selfish is a vice and not a virtue, especially when talking theology, I know exactly one religion that posits selfishness as a virtue and I very much doubt any of my detractors in this thread would say they're in agreement with the Satanic Temple (Which took many of it's pointers from objectivism and libertarianism to construct it's commandments).

Quote from: S'mon;1132948I tend to identify a need to impose your own will on the world with Chaotic. Lawful would want to create ordered systems. Chaos is only liberty for the strongest individual, whereas Law can create 'ordered Liberty' for all.

Like I said, L-N-C in its older conceptions makes sense to me. Enlightenment Liberals and Traditionalist Catholics are Lawful. Nazis and Communists are Chaotic. SJWS and the Alt-Right are Chaotic.  Traditionalists tend to Lawful, but some extreme Reactionaries may lean more Chaotic. Aggressive Militarists lean Chaotic. Neo-con 'Global Transformationists' lean Chaotic. Laissez-faire liberals and conservatives lean Lawful.

The English Civil War and the American War of Independence had a pretty even alignment spread on both sides. Maybe in the latter the US Rebels & Whigs were slightly more Lawful than their Loyalist & Tory opposition.

Agree that SJWism is Chaotic, but I think the Good/Evil axis helps distinguish the good-hearted "useful idiots" like Alexis Ohanian Sr. (CG) from the truly hateful ones (CE).

Quote from: S'mon;1132948I tend to identify a need to impose your own will on the world with Chaotic. Lawful would want to create ordered systems. Chaos is only liberty for the strongest individual, whereas Law can create 'ordered Liberty' for all.

Like I said, L-N-C in its older conceptions makes sense to me. Enlightenment Liberals and Traditionalist Catholics are Lawful. Nazis and Communists are Chaotic. SJWS and the Alt-Right are Chaotic.  Traditionalists tend to Lawful, but some extreme Reactionaries may lean more Chaotic. Aggressive Militarists lean Chaotic. Neo-con 'Global Transformationists' lean Chaotic. Laissez-faire liberals and conservatives lean Lawful.

The English Civil War and the American War of Independence had a pretty even alignment spread on both sides. Maybe in the latter the US Rebels & Whigs were slightly more Lawful than their Loyalist & Tory opposition.

Yeah, but this still relies on your subjective opinion and interpretation of alignment, and offers no workable solution that could consistently be applied without consulting you about what you think X or Y group's alignment should be. A lot this is still very contradictory, with Lawful being both ordered yet still (potentially) promoting 'liberty', Chaotic being rebellious, yet (possibly) totalitarian, and Traditionalists being lawful and chaotic at the same time. I wonder were "peace and love" hippies would fall in this paradigm.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1132949Um... Is Neutral Evil not an option?

The Nazis were so neutral in their approach that the greatest powers of the day, even disparate powers like the US and the Soviets, were compelled to come together to stop their neutrality from forcefully spreading across the world. And any time you ask anyone who plays D&D what alignment the Nazis were they will almost invariably tell you "Lawful Evil", unless they're actually familiar with history and the inner workings of how Nazi officers operated, on which case they might (possibly) tell you they were Chaotic. It's only when someone like me, who is dead set against alignment, points out these obvious contradictions that some defender of alignment might step in and claim "neutrality" rather than accept that maybe the reason that it's so difficult to pinpoint the exact alignment of the Nazis is because alignment doesn't work. But no one would ever suggest that Nazis were "neutral" in any other scenario because there's nothing about the forceful and totalitarian ways that Nazis operated or about their ideology that was actually neutral. They were the living embodiment of the expression "you can't be neutral on a moving train".

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132955The problem with Neutral in any axis you can dream of is (as far as I know) that in game terms it means you give exactly the same importance to either extreme, why? because to give exactly zero is Nirvana, and IMHO as implemented in the games (again as far as I know) it's a poor man's imitation of it.

The second problem is they started (for whatever reason) with Law (A poor substitute for Order IMHO) vs Chaos, and like I said from the start those aren't moral choices per se; so IMHO they should have started with Good vs Evil. And, unless you're an objectivist or a libertarian Selfish is a vice and not a virtue, especially when talking theology, I know exactly one religion that posits selfishness as a virtue and I very much doubt any of my detractors in this thread would say they're in agreement with the Satanic Temple (Which took many of it's pointers from objectivism and libertarianism to construct it's commandments).

Alignment does not have to be linked to some trite interpretation of the words "law" and "chaos". It works better when they're treated as factions, to whom descriptive labels have been applied. Instead of law representing some cartoonish literalist platonic view of order, you have two opposing sides. They each have a complex and not completely coherent set of beliefs, one of which is better described using the term "law" and the other of which is described using the term "chaos".

That frees you from the philosophically nonsensical attempt to define what "law" and "chaos" mean, in some abstract and universal sense. Which never works, because there are many mutually incompatible ways to associate certain behaviors or ideas with law and chaos, so your interpretation will be based on your own cultural context and preferences. It also frees you from the need to impose that level of abstraction on the behavior of individuals, which is always absurd because people are driven by human motivations, not vague abstract concepts. Instead, it allows you to define a rational and plausible world view and philosophy that can be summarized using one of the two words, and a second one, in opposition, that at least loosely fits the other word.

Alignment become an alignment, an affiliation with one side. Not some weird philosophical exercise that contorts behavior in inhuman and irrational ways.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132954So what I said from the start? You're either Good or Evil.

By the way Law is a poor substitute for Order, which is what represents the polar opposite of Chaos.

   No argument there, although I think there's room for Neutrality for ordinary folks who 'don't get involved' most of the time but are generally benign. Gandalf, Tom Bombadil, and Sauron are the examples I like to use for a three-point system. "Law/Order" and "Chaos" can be good if one wants to emphasize the cosmological or give it a bit of a twist, but then, I'm the sort who thinks that at the higher levels of reality, the options boil down to "In His will is our peace" and "Non serviam!"

  As I said, I think 4E's system was pretty good for allowing distinction between the 'Honorable and code-bound good' (Superman, Captain America, Obi-Wan Kenobi) and the 'not quite so rules-oriented, but still generally good' (Batman, Spider-Man, Qui-Gon Jinn) on one side, and the 'criminal or tyrant vs. nihilist' (Luthor or Sauron vs. the Joker or Morgoth) on the other. The only thing I thought it was missing was the 'honorable but ruthless' point, which could be contained easily enough as a flavor of Evil.

Quote from: Pat;1132962Alignment does not have to be linked to some trite interpretation of the words "law" and "chaos". It works better when they're treated as factions, to whom descriptive labels have been applied. Instead of law representing some cartoonish literalist platonic view of order, you have two opposing sides. They each have a complex and not completely coherent set of beliefs, one of which is better described using the term "law" and the other of which is described using the term "chaos".

That frees you from the philosophically nonsensical attempt to define what "law" and "chaos" mean, in some abstract and universal sense. Which never works, because there are many mutually incompatible ways to associate certain behaviors or ideas with law and chaos, so your interpretation will be based on your own cultural context and preferences. It also frees you from the need to impose that level of abstraction on the behavior of individuals, which is always absurd because people are driven by human motivations, not vague abstract concepts. Instead, it allows you to define a rational and plausible world view and philosophy that can be summarized using one of the two words, and a second one, in opposition, that at least loosely fits the other word.

Alignment become an alignment, an affiliation with one side. Not some weird philosophical exercise that contorts behavior in inhuman and irrational ways.

I can pretty much agree with all of this. Though, at that point I would question the use of the "Law/Order" and "Chaotic" labels, as opposed to proper names for each faction. But I can see how someone might be able to use "Law" and "Chaos" as inspiration to build these factions around, especially from a simple "It's a game!" point of view. But treating "alignment" as affiliations to explicit in-game factions is far more workable in game terms than trying to wrestle with philosophical concepts at the game table and hatch out arguments about which alignment means what.

There's nothing inherently subjective about "I belong to Team A" or "screw Team A, they treated me wrong. I belong with Team B now". Since Team A and Team B (Law vs Chaos) are concrete factions that inarguably exist in the world. It's merely a matter of which team you choose to align yourself with.

Quote from: Pat;1132962Alignment does not have to be linked to some trite interpretation of the words "law" and "chaos". It works better when they're treated as factions, to whom descriptive labels have been applied. Instead of law representing some cartoonish literalist platonic view of order, you have two opposing sides. They each have a complex and not completely coherent set of beliefs, one of which is better described using the term "law" and the other of which is described using the term "chaos".

That frees you from the philosophically nonsensical attempt to define what "law" and "chaos" mean, in some abstract and universal sense. Which never works, because there are many mutually incompatible ways to associate certain behaviors or ideas with law and chaos, so your interpretation will be based on your own cultural context and preferences. It also frees you from the need to impose that level of abstraction on the behavior of individuals, which is always absurd because people are driven by human motivations, not vague abstract concepts. Instead, it allows you to define a rational and plausible world view and philosophy that can be summarized using one of the two words, and a second one, in opposition, that at least loosely fits the other word.

Alignment become an alignment, an affiliation with one side. Not some weird philosophical exercise that contorts behavior in inhuman and irrational ways.

Except we're talking about the simulation of a Medieval or Pseudo-Medieval world, in which your very nuanced and enlightened point of view would surely find you at the stake.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1132967I can pretty much agree with all of this. Though, at that point I would question the use of the "Law/Order" and "Chaotic" labels, as opposed to proper names for each faction.

They can still make sense, within a cultural context. Say you have a mythology with gods and titans. The gods are associated with humanity and civilization, the protection of cities, the defeat of monsters, and gifts of knowledge. Each city has a patron, and there are legends of different gods teaching humans different skills, like smithing or agriculture. The titans are associated with the untrammeled wilderness, the monsters from without, barbarians at the gate, and the throwing down of city-states and empires by both force from without and corruption from within. You could easily say the gods are on the side of Law, and the titans are on the side of Chaos. And since we're talking about two divine factions, this alignment has a metaphysical basis. You could detect alignment, smite the opposition, and so on.

But that's not because Law and Chaos mean something, in a cosmic, absolute sense. It's because the dichotomy between two factions of divine beings has a metaphysical weight. But the manifestation and interpretation is defined by their culture, and a different culture might have gods and demons and a mythology that define law and chaos differently. Marduk vs. Tiamat, or the Aesir and Vanir vs. the Jotuns, could be different dynamics. Though if you really want all those in the same setting, it's true you probably want to come up with unique names for all the sides, instead of confusing things by calling a bunch of different and unrelated factions "Chaos".

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132968Except we're talking about the simulation of a Medieval or Pseudo-Medieval world, in which your very nuanced and enlightened point of view would surely find you at the stake.

D&D is a 99.99% modern world, with a thin veneer of medieval trappings.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1132963No argument there, although I think there's room for Neutrality for ordinary folks who 'don't get involved' most of the time but are generally benign. Gandalf, Tom Bombadil, and Sauron are the examples I like to use for a three-point system. "Law/Order" and "Chaos" can be good if one wants to emphasize the cosmological or give it a bit of a twist, but then, I'm the sort who thinks that at the higher levels of reality, the options boil down to "In His will is our peace" and "Non serviam!"

  As I said, I think 4E's system was pretty good for allowing distinction between the 'Honorable and code-bound good' (Superman, Captain America, Obi-Wan Kenobi) and the 'not quite so rules-oriented, but still generally good' (Batman, Spider-Man, Qui-Gon Jinn) on one side, and the 'criminal or tyrant vs. nihilist' (Luthor or Sauron vs. the Joker or Morgoth) on the other. The only thing I thought it was missing was the 'honorable but ruthless' point, which could be contained easily enough as a flavor of Evil.

So Neutral isn't an alignment? But a refusal to engage in the war?

So, If I understood you correctly, All the innocent victims are neutral because they aren't fighting evil? What about the monsters that stay home to cook? Are those neutral too? Even if they eat human babies?

Quote from: Pat;1132970D&D is a 99.99% modern world, with a thin veneer of medieval trappings.

Yep, which is why you have 99.99% of the trappings of the modern world. LOL You're trolling me at this point.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1132960Yeah, but this still relies on your subjective opinion and interpretation of alignment, and offers no workable solution that could consistently be applied without consulting you about what you think X or Y group's alignment should be. A lot this is still very contradictory, with Lawful being both ordered yet still (potentially) promoting 'liberty', Chaotic being rebellious, yet (possibly) totalitarian, and Traditionalists being lawful and chaotic at the same time. I wonder were "peace and love" hippies would fall in this paradigm.



The Nazis were so neutral in their approach that the greatest powers of the day, even disparate powers like the US and the Soviets, were compelled to come together to stop their neutrality from forcefully spreading across the world. And any time you ask anyone who plays D&D what alignment the Nazis were they will almost invariably tell you "Lawful Evil", unless they're actually familiar with history and the inner workings of how Nazi officers operated, on which case they might (possibly) tell you they were Chaotic. It's only when someone like me, who is dead set against alignment, points out these obvious contradictions that some defender of alignment might step in and claim "neutrality" rather than accept that maybe the reason that it's so difficult to pinpoint the exact alignment of the Nazis is because alignment doesn't work. But no one would ever suggest that Nazis were "neutral" in any other scenario because there's nothing about the forceful and totalitarian ways that Nazis operated or about their ideology that was actually neutral. They were the living embodiment of the expression "you can't be neutral on a moving train".

Neutral Evil is still evil. You seem to forget that there are two aspects to the 9 alignments. Most that opposed the Nazis did it because of the evil there, not because of their leanings toward law or chaos (onthat axis, I find them generally neutral while still being unquestionably evil).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132972Yep, which is why you have 99.99% of the trappings of the modern world. LOL You're trolling me at this point.

No, that was quite serious. D&D philosophy, alignment, characters, the relations between different social classes, even things like the size of streets, the number of inns, and the general state of hygiene in the cities have more in common with modern examples than they do with medieval reality or mindsets. A lot more. The reason for that, of course, is the writers are all modern people. The medieval aspects are a layer of paint slapped on deeply-ingrained modern assumptions.

I think that's why you have a problem with alignment. If you want something like alignment to make sense, you either have to adopt a culturally relativistic view; or you have to get into the mind of someone from that time, and then change the parts of D&D's implied setting that don't make sense in that context. It's the mish-mash of both that cause the conflicts.

Quote from: Pat;1132970D&D is a 99.99% modern world, with a thin veneer of medieval trappings.

This.

Quote from: Pat;1132969They can still make sense, within a cultural context. Say you have a mythology with gods and titans. The gods are associated with humanity and civilization, the protection of cities, the defeat of monsters, and gifts of knowledge. Each city has a patron, and there are legends of different gods teaching humans different skills, like smithing or agriculture. The titans are associated with the untrammeled wilderness, the monsters from without, barbarians at the gate, and the throwing down of city-states and empires by both force from without and corruption from within. You could easily say the gods are on the side of Law, and the titans are on the side of Chaos. And since we're talking about two divine factions, this alignment has a metaphysical basis. You could detect alignment, smite the opposition, and so on.

But that's not because Law and Chaos mean something, in a cosmic, absolute sense. It's because the dichotomy between two factions of divine beings has a metaphysical weight. But the manifestation and interpretation is defined by their culture, and a different culture might have gods and demons and a mythology that define law and chaos differently. Marduk vs. Tiamat, or the Aesir and Vanir vs. the Jotuns, could be different dynamics. Though if you really want all those in the same setting, it's true you probably want to come up with unique names for all the sides, instead of confusing things by calling a bunch of different and unrelated factions "Chaos".

Yeah, that's kinda what I meant. I can see how the themes of Order vs Chaos would play out in that scenario, cuz one group of supreme beings represents the constructive forces and structures of civilization, while the other represents the chaotic primordial mass that the universe was built from and the wild side of nature. But even then, team order could be called the Olympians and team chaos could be called the Titans to keep with the Greek themes. Team Olympians would be the gods of order and civilization (though, some individual gods, like Ares and Aphrodite, could be arguably "chaotic" in the sense of being unruly), while team Titans would be the gods of chaos and untamed nature.