Parthos Wiki: Alignment

Home, Rules, Message Boards, The Parthenon (AIM), The Parthenon (AOL)

Character Creation

Alignment

Alignment has always proved a sticky area for role-playing games. This is primarily due to the problem of wedging the entire realm of ethics and morality into nine easy subcategories—and secondarily due to a lack of familiarity with the basic concepts of ethics. (Send any gripes about underfunded Classics departments to PGM Casagemas.) Because of this, alignment will never be a completely accurate indicator of your character's moral standing; at best, it will be a generalization. Still, it is a useful generalization, and, if properly applied, can be a valuable part of the game. Here is my attempt at a proper application:

Law and Chaos

The relationship between law and chaos is perhaps the most consistently confused aspect of alignment systems. Frequently, a lawful character is described as one who obeys laws, whereas a chaotic character is described as one who rebels. The fundamental problem with these definitions is that they are based on actions. Here is one example of where these definitions fail:

Let's imagine a captain of the guard in a mythical city ruled by a benevolent, but firm, king. Our captain is a highly principled man with a deep sense of loyalty to the king. He follows and enforces the letter of the law because he believes that, even if the guilty occasionally go free and the innocent occasionally do not, a system of law is necessary for the protection of the innocent and the cultivation of society. On the rare occasions on which the law causes injustice, he proceeds as normal, then tries to correct the law. He is, let's say, lawful good.

Now imagine that the benevolent king is assassinated and replaced by a ruthless, maniacal dictator. As proof of his Ruthlessness and Mania, he orders our captain of the guard to murder, oh, all women whom he deems ugly. Surely, the highly principled captain will refuse. But then he wouldn't be very lawful, would he?

In order to avoid conflicts like this, we must define lawfulness not in terms of behavior, but in terms of belief. A lawful person does not merely obey laws; his belief is that law is best for the society that he cherishes. This lawfulness will only translate to foreign codes of law when the foreign society has roughly the same values as that of his home. Let's define lawfulness, then, not as a general belief in or acquiescence to law, but rather as subscribing to a particular code of laws, which takes precedence over all others, including that of lawlessness. A lawful person only obeys the law insofar as it promotes his values (or is dictated by necessity).

Chaos is slightly easier to define. Whereas there are many types of laws (benevolent laws, tyrannical laws, etc.) there is only one sort of chaos: the complete absence of law. So a chaotic person is one who believes in chaos in general. Still, we cannot define a chaotic person as one who rebels. There are times when circumstances dictate that he follow the law; after all, few things will get one killed like willfully ignoring any laws that one comes across. But he remains defined by his belief that law is detrimental to society; or, at least, that it is detrimental to his society.

Good and Evil

That was easy, wasn't it? Fortunately, the distinction between good and evil doesn't require such a longwinded explanation. The good person seeks to produce the greatest amount of good (which we might better term “fortune,” or “well-being”) in the greatest number of people. The evil person seeks to produce the greatest amount of good in himself and perhaps a limited group with whom he has aligned himself. This likely seems misguided at first glance: what about, for example, the petty thief who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family? Is he evil for looking out for his family (a “limited group with whom he has aligned himself”)? Provided that his family is indeed starving, and that he isn't taking the bread from someone else who is starving, the thief is almost certainly producing more good (“fortune,” “well-being”) in more people by stealing the bread than he would by not stealing it. Therefore, he is certainly not evil; at worst, he is neutral.

Neutrality

To be neutral is to be apathetic in respect to something: a neutral good character merely wants to do good, regardless of whether that means promoting the law or tearing it down. A lawful neutral character merely wants to promote justice, whether it benefits good or evil. And so on. However, this definition runs into trouble with people who are “true neutral,” i.e., neutral with respect both to law and chaos and good and evil. Are such people merely ideologically lazy? Well, some are, certainly. A person whose only desire is to protect or produce his own well-being, though not to the point that it detracts from the well-being of others, is likely best described as “true neutral.” However, this is an incomplete view, for there are other sorts of people who are neutral to law, chaos, good, and evil. These sorts of people have very strong ideologies that are simply not based in morals and ethics. Druids are perhaps the best example; generally, their only concern is for protecting nature. Still, this fits in well enough with our moral conception: it is an example of caring only for one's own well-being, or that of a cause with which one has aligned oneself, but not to the extent that it hurts others.

Individual Alignments

In light of the above, here is a brief definition of each of the nine alignment combinations:

Lawful Good: One who seeks to foster the greatest amount of well-being in the greatest number of people, and believes that lawfulness is the most efficient means of doing so.

Neutral Good: One who cares only for ensuring widespread well-being, and will ignore the law when it seems to contradict this goal.

Chaotic Good: One who believes that lawfulness impedes equitable well-being.

Lawful Neutral: One who holds lawfulness paramount above other concerns. Alternately, a member of a structured society whose goal is self-preservation, balance, or non-aggressive self-interest.

True Neutral: One who cares only for one's own well-being, or that of a cause with which he has aligned himself, but not to an unjust extent.

Chaotic Neutral: One who believes that law impedes his best interests, or else circumvents the natural order.

Lawful Evil: One who subscribes to the laws of a society characterized by malicious, aggressive self-interest.

Neutral Evil: One who cares solely for his own wealth, heedless of the cost to others.

Chaotic Evil: One who believes that the destruction of law is the most efficient path to his own wealth, and seeks to effect this end whenever possible.