Quote from: HappyDaze;1132973Neutral 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).

No, most that opposed the Nazis did so because the Nazis gave them no choice. The US tried to stay out of it, but the Nazis were so out of control it became a question of "we either end them now or they're gonna rule us later". It wasn't just that they were "evil", it was that you were either with them or against them (another expression they were the living embodiment of), which is the opposite of neutrality. There's nothing "neutral" about totalitarianism, and there has arguably never been a group human history (with the possible exception of the Soviets) more associated with the word "totalitarian" than the Nazis. Not even the Catholic church was more totalitarian than they were.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1132976Yeah, 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.

Yep, but you'll note I didn't mention any gods by names, or specifically say Greek or Olympian, and my titan was lower-case. That's because we're talking about the Law/Chaos alignment axis in D&D, which by default doesn't have gods, legends, or anything specific. It just says Law tends in one direction, and Chaos in another, and applies those labels. The rest is all implied, or left to the players and DM to define or not define, to whatever degree and in whatever direction they choose. Interpreting that in a pseudo-Olympian context is one option, and being concrete can help people wrap their heads around it, but that degree of specificity is not necessary for the concept. All D&D really says is there's Law and Chaos, and you should pick a side or stay neutral.

Note, since alignment is defined as factions, this also allows for contradictions, like Prometheus (a titan) giving fire to humans, but being punished by the gods. Because it's not about Prometheus' morality or justifications, it's about sides, which includes things like race/ethnicity (him being a titan), jealousy, usurping perceived prerogatives, and different interpretations and different ways of weighing, assessing, and even conceiving of things like betrayal and forgiveness; and all that can matter far more than end goals and abstract ideals.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1132979No, most that opposed the Nazis did so because the Nazis gave them no choice. The US tried to stay out of it, but the Nazis were so out of control it became a question of "we either end them now or they're gonna rule us later". It wasn't just that they were "evil", it was that you were either with them or against them (another expression they were the living embodiment of), which is the opposite of neutrality. There's nothing "neutral" about totalitarianism, and there has arguably never been a group human history (with the possible exception of the Soviets) more associated with the word "totalitarian" than the Nazis. Not even the Catholic church was more totalitarian than they were.

You don't appear to understand that the "neutral" in neutral evil is only in regards to taking a lawful vs. chaotic approach to doing evil. It has nothing to do with being neutral or passive towards others. I now believe that much of your crusade against alignment stems from a lack of comprehension.

I can agree with some of what VisionStorm is saying here, I became disenchanted with d&d alignment a long time ago, not because it's an abstraction, but because it's a useless one when you try to apply it to any real-world historical situation, or even to a half-way satisfying fantasy situation.

My take on the Nazi "alignment" is, before they came to power and they were street thugs and rioters, mostly chaotic evil. They thrived on disorder, required it, demanded it.

After they came to power, they effectively controlled and "became" the law. They were the new order, so their interest was in order. Sort of. So almost lawful evil by definition. And in the night of the long knives they purged many of the most chaotic elements in the party (the perpetual revolution brigade) along with the last lingering elements of "socialism." So lawful evil for sure, right?

 But no. From Kristallnacht to the battle of Berlin, Goebbels remained a powerful voice for sheet nihilistic mindless destruction. The essence of chaotic evil. Even Hitler created the most chaotic management structure ever at the highest levels of government, and he did it deliberately. He continued to need chaos.

And what about the gauleiters in the party? Mostly just corrupt gangsters, out to feather their own nests. The essence of Neutral evil.

Maybe Geeky Bugle is right, evil is the only common thread here. The law-chaos spectrum is totally unsatisfying.

Maybe I should add that I can somewhat agree with Pat about the utility of alignment as rival cosmic factions. If you go with that it does force you into a particular "cosmic factions" setting that I grew disenchanted with, but that's okay, it's not nonsensical in fantasy and great if that's what you want.

Alignment as personality and behaviour has never appealed to me though, even from the beginning.

Quote from: Pat;1132974No, 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.

So the alignment is broken, glad we can agree.

Alignment is a lot like hit points and Armor making you harder to hit in one respect:  It only works when zoomed out to the about the right level of abstraction.  It's a very rough short-hand for "Team A versus Team B" as others have said.  Zoom in more than that, it develops fault lines that a given group may or may not be able to ignore.

I do think that even when keeping alignment appropriately high level, it does need to be customized to the setting.  If there aren't heavy movers and shakers in the campaign world with which a player can "align", then it is kind of pointless.

Alignment: Among the oldest narrative, keyword-based (non-)mechanics around.

Quote from: Zirunel;1132983I can agree with some of what VisionStorm is saying here, I became disenchanted with d&d alignment a long time ago, not because it's an abstraction, but because it's a useless one when you try to apply it to any real-world historical situation, or even to a half-way satisfying fantasy situation.

My take on the Nazi "alignment" is, before they came to power and they were street thugs and rioters, mostly chaotic evil. They thrived on disorder, required it, demanded it.

After they came to power, they effectively controlled and "became" the law. They were the new order, so their interest was in order. Sort of. So almost lawful evil by definition. And in the night of the long knives they purged many of the most chaotic elements in the party (the perpetual revolution brigade) along with the last lingering elements of "socialism." So lawful evil for sure, right?

 But no. From Kristallnacht to the battle of Berlin, Goebbels remained a powerful voice for sheet nihilistic mindless destruction. The essence of chaotic evil. Even Hitler created the most chaotic management structure ever at the highest levels of government, and he did it deliberately. He continued to need chaos.

And what about the gauleiters in the party? Mostly just corrupt gangsters, out to feather their own nests. The essence of Neutral evil.

Maybe Geeky Bugle is right, evil is the only common thread here. The law-chaos spectrum is totally unsatisfying.

Maybe I should add that I can somewhat agree with Pat about the utility of alignment as rival cosmic factions. If you go with that it does force you into a particular "cosmic factions" setting that I grew disenchanted with, but that's okay, it's not nonsensical in fantasy and great if that's what you want.

Alignment as personality and behaviour has never appealed to me though, even from the beginning.

Lets talk "Cosmic Factions", which one is neutral? How many are there? Is the neutral one really neutral? I mean it never takes a side on the conflicts of the other factions.

Cosmic Factions IS Good vs Evil, for the religious ones it's God vs the Devil. And since the game tries to use the alignment as a sort of moral code, Order vs Chaos don't work because those aren't intrinsically moral choices as my own detractors have demonstrated. A moral choice IS Good vs Evil whatever the factions on each side are. Order can be good or evil, same for Chaos.

So, unless we're proposing "Cosmic Factions" that are both Good and Evil each and every one of them... Their choices and who do you pledge allegiance to (alignment) are again reduced to the dichotomy of Good vs Evil.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1132982You don't appear to understand that the "neutral" in neutral evil is only in regards to taking a lawful vs. chaotic approach to doing evil. It has nothing to do with being neutral or passive towards others. I now believe that much of your crusade against alignment stems from a lack of comprehension.

So you do exactly 50% of Chaos and 50% of Order in your life... I'll say it again, Neutral is a very pale shadow of Nirvana, embracing the duality, the opposites and stop fighting any of them and recognize them as two sides of the same coin.

In game you'd need to become a tally machine, to keep track of how many times you acted Chaotic and Orderly to maintain the perfect balance. Does that model any sort of real person?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1132985Alignment is a lot like hit points and Armor making you harder to hit in one respect:  It only works when zoomed out to the about the right level of abstraction.  It's a very rough short-hand for "Team A versus Team B" as others have said.  Zoom in more than that, it develops fault lines that a given group may or may not be able to ignore.

I do think that even when keeping alignment appropriately high level, it does need to be customized to the setting.  If there aren't heavy movers and shakers in the campaign world with which a player can "align", then it is kind of pointless.

Correct in one respect, it is "Team A vs Team B". Now, innocent civilians (those not engaged in the conflict) are civilians, but, are they really neutral? If Team B comes to town do they give them shelter and food? If Team B is known to be in the forests nearby do they go invite them to town or do they call someone from Team A?

In order for it to work as it should (Team A vs Team B) you can't have really neutral parties, unless you posit (like my old DM) a truly powerful Dragon that took a territory and by virtue of it's power the conflict stays outside of his lands, and you could even ask to be let in if you renounced to the fight. Of course if you then reverted you wouldn't last long and your punishment would be exemplar. In his Kingdom you could find almost all the races (the more intelligent ones) living in tolerance of each other.

But his neutrality only worked because his power was such no one short of a God would dare challenge him, and as long as he really stayed outside of the conflict helping no one the sides were happy to let him be.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132988So you do exactly 50% of Chaos and 50% of Order in your life... I'll say it again, Neutral is a very pale shadow of Nirvana, embracing the duality, the opposites and stop fighting any of them and recognize them as two sides of the same coin.

In game you'd need to become a tally machine, to keep track of how many times you acted Chaotic and Orderly to maintain the perfect balance. Does that model any sort of real person?

That's wrong. Neutral doesn't have to be perfectly balanced, nor does it have to be an active "pro-neutral" stance. Neutral can simply be a lack of strong bias toward either direction.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1132990That's wrong. Neutral doesn't have to be perfectly balanced, nor does it have to be an active "pro-neutral" stance. Neutral can simply be a lack of strong bias toward either direction.

So a "Neutral" that isn't really Neutral... Lack of strong bias doesn't mean zero bias, it just means you have less bias towards one or the other, making you (in religious terms) a mostly good or mostly bad sinner.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132988So you do exactly 50% of Chaos and 50% of Order in your life... I'll say it again, Neutral is a very pale shadow of Nirvana, embracing the duality, the opposites and stop fighting any of them and recognize them as two sides of the same coin.

In game you'd need to become a tally machine, to keep track of how many times you acted Chaotic and Orderly to maintain the perfect balance. Does that model any sort of real person?

If you imagine that is what "Neutral" on your character sheet means then I can see why you are not very impressed with Alignment.

Luckily for the rest of us, that is not what Neutral means.

On the most basic level "True Neutral" can represent the natural world, animals, weather and other mindless organic forces like Volcano's and Earthquakes.  On the Civilisational level it could mean that you just dont care about any of the factions or it could mean that you dont have any firm beliefs to guide your life.

Gygax wrote a series of books that detailed the cosmic clash of Devil vs Demons and the Neutral Evil Daemons interfered to stop either side from gaining too much power.  Infact the main character Gord was supposed to be the Neutral Champion but because Greyhawk is such a shit show of evil he only had to fight agianst evil to act as a blancing force.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132992So a "Neutral" that isn't really Neutral... Lack of strong bias doesn't mean zero bias, it just means you have less bias towards one or the other, making you (in religious terms) a mostly good or mostly bad sinner.

I don't care about your religious add-ons; they're a you thing not a D&D thing. In D&D, neutral has long been a middle ground for those uncommitted to either side, and most humans (as but one example) tend toward neutral. Old school druids took the odd approach to a strict middle ground approach, but that wasn't the default.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132908"...players for whatever reason feel the..." The What?

LOL!!! A whole chunk of my post vanished! D'oh! Sorry I didn't catch that.

Here's what I actually meant.

Geeky, another reason I use Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil is that players for whatever reason feel the Good vs. Evil dynamic DEMANDS inter-party combat. It's Team Good vs. Team Evil and the only interaction with the opposite team involves rolling for initiative. And I totally get that!

I've done the "Good guys must work with the Bad guys because Bigger Evil" one-shot scenario, but that makes little sense for week after week in a campaign.  

Law vs. Chaos doesn't seem to trigger than same PvP reaction in players.

As I'm a big fan of alignment (its an easy shorthand), I encourage players to roleplay their choice at the table, and in general, a mixed table of L/N/C alignments creates interesting interactions and tensions without auto PvP. But of course, that's not what I want in every campaign. I'm happy for my Good vs. Evil campaigns to be a unified table of stalwart heroes.