Allignment Musings

[LightlyFrosted]

How 'in character' are the cardinal alignments?  I've seen quests in which paladins actively attempt to 'detect evil' - even if no one is actively being evil at the time, evil characters have still registered as being so.  This may in fact indicate that although we have some trouble completely defining all of the traits of anyone good or evil, it is not a wholly subjective term.   Similar concepts could be pointed out when looking at summons - someone who summons a demon (quasit, imp, whatever..) is probably not on the picnic lunch invitation list.

I will grant, perhaps, that 'neutral' wouldn't register for many in character checks of alignment, and might therefore be notable only in this absence.  In a setting where characters can be rendered physically incapable of using a tool or a weapon on the basis of their alignment, can we still claim that good or evil - or even to a lesser degree, law and chaos - are wholly subjective terms from an in-character perspective?

Any suggestions to this extent would be useful and appreciated.  I'm not looking to go around in an Order of the Stick-esque world, calling people 'Lawful Good' or 'Chaotic Neutral', but if such terms can be objectively measured, it's a question to be considered.

[Gulnyr]

There is a difference between Good and good, Evil and evil, Lawful and lawful, or Chaotic and chaotic.  The capitalized ones are rulebook alignments, and the others are subjective concepts like in real life.

The real life, lower case ones exist in-character in the same way they exist in real life.  The rulebook, capitalized ones exist in the game world, too, but not really in a conscious sort of way; no one would ever say, "Oh, he's Lawful Good because he's a Paladin."  Instead, they exist... sort of like auras, I guess.  There aren't any in-character words for it, but some people or objects or places just exude Goodness or Evilness or whatever, and it's the interaction of those that cause the inability to use certain objects (or the damage from them) or the uncomfortable feelings people get.  

Generally, in-character, good, evil, lawful, and chaotic are pretty much subjective just like real life, while Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic exist as universal truths or ideals and characters don't really have any conscious awareness of them.

[lonnarin]

Well, purely in the D&D sense, good vs evil is a question of whether the individual puts their own needs or those of others first, whether they show greed or altruism, whether they manifest notions of peace and goodwill or violence and hate.  Essentially, most people look out for themselves first, and then others to a much lesser degree, but are unwilling to be as vile as to cause harm or loss to another for their own gain... that would be neutral.  If one were predatory in nature and adopted a "his problem, not mine" attitude when stealing from, coercing or manipulating others, then they show signs of evil.  Violence is easier than peace, and only the winner really wins, whereas mutual negotiation and compromise would benefit both... Neutral, and actually taking a loss yourself so that another may profit in your place is good.  Its a concept which spans across issues of property ownership, romance, interpersonal relationships, etc.  As long as some commodity, be it obedience, wealth, power, political prestige etc is being transferred from one being to another.  A creepy guy in all black who stabs himself in quiet really isnt evil... just insane... whereas somebody who kills cats just for the fun in watching them suffer is getting a minor gain for himself in exchange for a major loss for the cat.  The extent of goodness or evil is the measure and direction of inequity in the final resolution of whichever resource is being transferred.  The whiplash effect of reciprocal actions responding to these events is known as karma; do evil and it comes back, do good and it comes back.  Not really cosmic, just common sense that people look out for those who look out for them, and smite those that smite them.

Now on the law vs chaos scale, I see it as a measure of one's independance and individualism vs. their obedience to authority and acceptance of collective will.  Laws are essentially societal norms which are set in place by a quasi-democratic consensus of the masses, and crimes are deviations from these laws.  This is why lawful people tend to be conformists and chaotic people wind up being called freaks, once one seperates their own traits from the accepted societal norms, the dissonance between law and chaos results in a conflict of wills.  The state says you should do as they say for the good of all, but the individual would rather think, act and live his own way.  This is not a selfish vs selfless concept, but rather a procedural one where the manner in which the actions are performed and how those actions fit within the societal norms.  Law hates chaos because it wont stick to the master gameplan authority devised, while chaos hates law because it's forcing others to give up their free will and submit to the judgements and punishments of a faceless, inhuman hierarchy. To each, the opposite feels just as wrong as good does to evil.

That's my view on it anyhow.  Good and evil is just subjective altruism and neutral is mutual benefit and compromise.  Law and Chaos is is whether you do things their way or the highway.