Lawful/Chaotic Alignment Axis Balance

[Wodan]

Spiders are good! They catch and kill mosquitos and flies!

We need to start a petition to change these Archos guys to Good, then!

Nah, spiders are evil incarnate

Spiders kill innocent bugs and mosquitos, true, but the hapless insects are not in the spider society, so it doesn't count. Thus, the spiders are in fact Good. Lawful Good, actually, since the spider society does indeed have Laws which govern the killing of bugs.

 

[Deon]

Oh, we need to recruit some to hunt the bugs of RiFE 1.20 then!

And yeah, Spiders are not evil, they just have a differnet logic, and also they hunt species which are very different to them, like humans hunt animals.
Thus they may be considered evil from the HUMAN point of view, but in any case they're not chaotic. Spider power government structure should be law-abiding and strict, thus lawful.

 

[Opera]

Evil, that's all I have to say

 

[odalrick]

You're tossing out platitudes as if they were truisms.

Instead of saying "why", if you prefer I can say "citation needed" or "you need to demonstrate why that statement is true".

I don't know how much clearer I can be. You can't be both Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good at the same time, because those are two different alignments. It's like trying to explain why "up" isn't "left".

Though... wouldn't the same be true of evil? Orthodox Order is fully lawful and thus would have no resources to spare on being Evil? I believe you previously said that Order is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral. Right?

Yes. I never meant that they can only be Lawful Evil, just that I personally dislike any Order society more than I do other Any Evil societies. They're "evil" not "Evil".

I think I see what you are saying. "Good actions can be negated; evil actions can't." I disagree, though. If Bertram steals a ribbon, has a crisis of conscience, and gives it back; heck, goes out and buys 10 of them and gives them all to the person, then he has made "whole" the person who suffered from the theft.

Likewise, someone who's evil, and steals, then decides to give it back, does not gain the affirmation of "evilness" from the theft.

You can make up for Evil acts, just not by "doing them in reverse". It's not enough to just give back the ribbon. If you kill someone, it's not enough to resurrect them; and especially not having a kid. It's strange since they are each others opposites, taking a life and giving a life.

Ditto for Good actions. Saving someone's life at great risk is Good, refraining from saving him isn't Evil.

Of course one could argue that my examples aren't the opposite action, they just look like they are.

What's imaging a CG act have to do with it?

I think you're trying to say that you don't have to spend as much resources being chaotic as you do being lawful. Therefore, you can spend more of your limited resources being good if you're chaotic. Thus, a CG person has the capacity to be more good than a LG person. (right?)

No, you have to spend resources to maintain any alignment. If you don't, you'll move towards Neutral/Neutral by the law of averages. But if you don't bother about your position on the Chaotic/Lawful axis, you will have more resources available for being Good/Evil.

If you are Lawful Good then occasionally you will have opportunities to do Chaotic Good acts, that move you further along the Good/Evil axis than any Lawful Good, or even Neutral Good action available.

The assumption is that opportunities for alignment change is random. Living in Lawful Good society will skew the distribution towards Lawful Good by filtering out some not-Lawful Good opportunities.

 

[Wodan]

I don't know how much clearer I can be. You can't be both Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good at the same time, because those are two different alignments. It's like trying to explain why "up" isn't "left".

Yeah, it's because I think it they will choose which of the non-specific axis they are in each game while you think Orthodox people are required to be neutral on the non-specific axis.

And so, by that definition, I understand (but don't agree with though I'm starting to have doubts) the requirement that orthodox order is lawful neutral. By extrapolation, orthodox RoK must be neutral good, orthodox empyrean must be neutral good also, orthodox fellowship must be chaotic neutral, orthodox OO must be chaotic neutral, and orthodox AV must be neutral evil.

Curious... do you agree with all those requirements as well as the one for Orthodox Order?

Yes. I never meant that they can only be Lawful Evil, just that I personally dislike any Order society more than I do other Any Evil societies. They're "evil" not "Evil".

I'd suggest not to use a game term in some other definition of the English language... just causes confusion during discussions. (I can be bad on this too but it's something I've noticed before so I try to avoid it.)

You can make up for Evil acts, just not by "doing them in reverse". It's not enough to just give back the ribbon. If you kill someone, it's not enough to resurrect them; and especially not having a kid. It's strange since they are each others opposites, taking a life and giving a life.

Why isn't it enough? (We need an answer to that question to determine what would be enough.)

Ditto for Good actions. Saving someone's life at great risk is Good, refraining from saving him isn't Evil.

That's not comparable. Doing/not doing are not opposites in the same way as taking/giving back.

Need an answer to the first and a better example to the second before I can really respond to the concept (orther than what I previously said which is

Of course one could argue that my examples aren't the opposite action, they just look like they are.

See above.

To a great extent, the point of "opposite" is sophistry anyway. To me, the issue in question is making the situation whole. If you steal an item from somebody, to make them whole we need to not only restore the future availability of the item (in the same condition as it would have been) but we need to compensate for the lost availability of the item while it was gone.

If the item was returned before it was noticed to be missing, then that would be sufficient to restore the situation. If the person not only noticed it was missing, but needed it for something, that's when additional measures are necessary. Otherwise, there will be some degree of movement on the good/evil axis which remains.

Same is true for any other good/evil act than theft.

No, you have to spend resources to maintain any alignment. If you don't, you'll move towards Neutral/Neutral by the law of averages. But if you don't bother about your position on the Chaotic/Lawful axis, you will have more resources available for being Good/Evil.

If you are Lawful Good then occasionally you will have opportunities to do Chaotic Good acts, that move you further along the Good/Evil axis than any Lawful Good, or even Neutral Good action available.

That confused me... I thought at question was your statement (paraphrased) that Chaotic can be more good than Lawful. So, shouldn't the above say "If you are Chaotic Good then occasionally you will have opportunities to do Lawful Good acts, that move you further along the Good/Evil axis than any Lawful Good, or even Neutral Good action available."

If so, then the only way it would work is if the CG person does not get "Good credit" for doing a LG act (= an act which is required by the laws of the LG society). But the converse would also be true: A LG person does not get "Good credit" for doing a CG act (= an act which is required by the CG society). With the assumption that a LG society has more such laws than the CG society (though "laws" might be the wrong word because presumably a CG society has conventions or traditions or whatever that implement the CG nature of the society). Which I suppose might be the case.

 

[odalrick]

Yeah, it's because I think it they will choose which of the non-specific axis they are in each game while you think Orthodox people are required to be neutral on the non-specific axis.

And so, by that definition, I understand (but don't agree with though I'm starting to have doubts) the requirement that orthodox order is lawful neutral. By extrapolation, orthodox RoK must be neutral good, orthodox empyrean must be neutral good also, orthodox fellowship must be chaotic neutral, orthodox OO must be chaotic neutral, and orthodox AV must be neutral evil.

Curious... do you agree with all those requirements as well as the one for Orthodox Order?

Yes. By orthodox I meant the original, uncorrupted message from the god in question. I never even considered the possibility that that might change from game to game. And by that same logic Orthodox Any religion has a particular alignment that never changes, even in different games. (Only the more than godlike patch-magic can change that.)

edit:
Also only Ashen Veil and Order is have so extreme alignments that they cannot tolerate others.

To a great extent, the point of "opposite" is sophistry anyway. To me, the issue in question is making the situation whole. If you steal an item from somebody, to make them whole we need to not only restore the future availability of the item (in the same condition as it would have been) but we need to compensate for the lost availability of the item while it was gone.

If the item was returned before it was noticed to be missing, then that would be sufficient to restore the situation. If the person not only noticed it was missing, but needed it for something, that's when additional measures are necessary. Otherwise, there will be some degree of movement on the good/evil axis which remains.

Same is true for any other good/evil act than theft.

To a great extent, I agree with you. I don't think giving back a stolen ribbon is a Good act, more like making one less Evil. Also, I think you'd have to compensate for potential damage as well; damage that could have happened, but didn't.

That confused me... I thought at question was your statement (paraphrased) that Chaotic can be more good than Lawful. So, shouldn't the above say "If you are Chaotic Good then occasionally you will have opportunities to do Lawful Good acts, that move you further along the Good/Evil axis than any Lawful Good, or even Neutral Good action available."

That too. There are 2.25 million distinct alignments in the game, I didn't feel like doing all that typing.

If so, then the only way it would work is if the CG person does not get "Good credit" for doing a LG act (= an act which is required by the laws of the LG society). But the converse would also be true: A LG person does not get "Good credit" for doing a CG act (= an act which is required by the CG society). With the assumption that a LG society has more such laws than the CG society (though "laws" might be the wrong word because presumably a CG society has conventions or traditions or whatever that implement the CG nature of the society). Which I suppose might be the case.

Crudely put: Lawful works by saying "Either do what I say or I'll bash your teeth in.". So any action that you do only to keep your teeth is not-Good. You weren't altruistic, you just selfishly wanted to keep your teeth. However, if you did a better job than was strictly necessary to keep your teeth, got get a small Good-shift.

In the world according to Junil, no one even considers disobedience, so the bashing of teeth isn't necessary. Doing more than what was needed is also not following the laws. "I asked you to feed ten orphans, how dare you feed eleven!?! Off to the gallows with you!"

Chaotic says: "Do whatever you want.". That includes the freedom to starve when you cant find food, freeze when you cant find shelter and feed orphans because some asstard says he'll bash your teeth in if you don't.

I've realized I'm thinking more along the lines of four axes, Chaotic, Lawful, Good and Evil. Moving up on Lawful usually means going down on Chaotic, but not always. A single action could be both Evil and Good.

That's not the way the game works though, some some of my conclusions so far are wrong.

 

[Wodan]

Yes. By orthodox I meant the original, uncorrupted message from the god in question.

Gods, both in real life and in fantasy books, rpgs, etc. are notoriously poor communicators. The actual dogma is written down by the mortal priests. Particularly for orthodox, this is relevant.

To me, "orthodox" means particularly strident enforcers of the dogma (and willingness of the people to voluntarily follow it). Since the dogma are mortal interpretations of what the god is reputed to have said, often literal interpretations instead of figurative, it means orthodox probably really isn't how the god would do it if the god was down here and in charge on a daily basis.

To me, the "message" is a guideline and not an set of rules that cover every possible instance down to the last detail. The guidelines must be interpreted, yes. How strictly the interpretation is followed and/or enforced determines whether a religion is orthodox or not.

I never even considered the possibility that that might change from game to game.

Maybe we should talk about that then?

And by that same logic Orthodox Any religion has a particular alignment that never changes, even in different games. (Only the more than godlike patch-magic can change that.)

Depends on defintion of "Orthodox" (see above for my thoughts).

Also only Ashen Veil and Order is have so extreme alignments that they cannot tolerate others.

Conceptually, I might agree with that (for orthodox implementations of the religion). But note that the implementation in the game doesn't work that way.

Crudely put: Lawful works by saying "Either do what I say or I'll bash your teeth in.". So any action that you do only to keep your teeth is not-Good. You weren't altruistic, you just selfishly wanted to keep your teeth.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. That said, anytime someone does something good when they have multiple motives (besides altruism), it diminishes the "goodness" of the action.

So, doing somthing good, even when the police / society says you have to do it or suffer a penalty, is still a Good act. Not as Good as doing it of your own volition (if the law didn't exist).

In the world according to Junil, no one even considers disobedience, so the bashing of teeth isn't necessary. Doing more than what was needed is also not following the laws. "I asked you to feed ten orphans, how dare you feed eleven!?! Off to the gallows with you!"

We differ there. If there is no law regarding something, then the citizen has no guidance. So the citizen is free to do the thing, or to not do it, without ramification under the Law.

Chaotic says: "Do whatever you want."

Not quite there. Do whatever you want up until the point where it infringes on the rights of others to do what they want.

That includes the freedom to starve when you cant find food, freeze when you cant find shelter

That's where Good comes in. There's nothing prohibiting altruism, and in fact, in a CG society there would be quite a bit of it. (In a CE society, absolutely none at all.)

and feed orphans because some asstard says he'll bash your teeth in if you don't.

See 2 above.

I've realized I'm thinking more along the lines of four axes, Chaotic, Lawful, Good and Evil. Moving up on Lawful usually means going down on Chaotic, but not always. A single action could be both Evil and Good.

That's not the way the game works though, some some of my conclusions so far are wrong.

I've been arguing from the viewpoint of my understanding of the proposed / current implementation and the traditional D&D 2 axis sytem.

 

[odalrick]

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. That said, anytime someone does something good when they have multiple motives (besides altruism), it diminishes the "goodness" of the action.

So, doing somthing good, even when the police / society says you have to do it or suffer a penalty, is still a Good act. Not as Good as doing it of your own volition (if the law didn't exist).

Most of the time the Good you do from following the law is greater than what you would lose by not following it, usually because there is only a chance the law will be enforced. Then there is a Good "surplus".

But that's just nitpicking, as long as the value is lowered by non-Good motives, I agree in principle.

Not quite there. Do whatever you want up until the point where it infringes on the rights of others to do what they want.

No, that's less than fully Chaotic. Fully Chaotic is "do whatever you want".

I've been arguing from the viewpoint of my understanding of the proposed / current implementation and the traditional D&D 2 axis sytem.

So have I. I only just realized that four axes fit my model better, so obviously my model has been flawed.

Now that I've removed two axes from my model, I think we only differ in minor interpretations of the values. For instance exactly how Lawful/Chaotic Order is.

 

[Valkrionn]

To me, "orthodox" means particularly strident enforcers of the dogma (and willingness of the people to voluntarily follow it). Since the dogma are mortal interpretations of what the god is reputed to have said, often literal interpretations instead of figurative, it means orthodox probably really isn't how the god would do it if the god was down here and in charge on a daily basis.

Orthodox to me (at least in game) varies each game, based on who founds the religion. A Bannor Order is different from a Kuriotates Order.

For now there's really no ingame function there, but there will be something similar eventually when Thomas.Berubeg starts up on Religious Schisms again.

No, that's less than fully Chaotic. Fully Chaotic is "do whatever you want".

Chaotic Good - "Do whatever you want up until the point where it infringes on the rights of others to do what they want."

Chaotic - "Do whatever you want"

Chaotic Evil - "Do whatever you want, despite how it may impact others"

 

[Imuratep]

I paragraphed your post a bit for easier reading, since it was worth the read, and figured more would read it this way. No offense

No problem, I don't feel offended. I was typing it in the university library and I saw that my course was beginning soon. As it was on a public computer I couldn't save it to rework it later and I didn't want to write it again. Fortunately now that my own computer is repaired I will finally have internet for my own again.

 

[thomas.berubeg]

I'de just like to interject that spiders are clearly Evil: WAAAAAAY too many legs and eyes and things. clearly evil and spawn of hell.

 

[Deon]

You're xenophobic. You're evil .

 

[Gladi]

Chaotic Good - "Do whatever you want up until the point where it infringes on the rights of others to do what they want."

Chaotic - "Do whatever you want"

Chaotic Evil - "Do whatever you want, despite how it may impact others"

So how are Chaotic and Chaotic evil different? If I want to adorn my house at Christmas with butchered carcasses of newborns, how is it more Chaotic Evil than Chaotic? And what will Chaotic Good person do to me? Can he infringe on my right do what I want (butchering newborns and hanging their carcasess on display) to do?

Personally I see Chaotic/Lawful as Personal versus Rational law.

In lawful state a killing will always be judged by the same laws. There will be a system, which says when it is crime, when there are mitigating circumstances and what the penalties are. In such a society a judge or civil official is not a person- he does not make personal decisions. With the crime it does not matter if you get judge A, B or C- their decisions will be same, because they are following the same LAW. Everyone is jedged the same, no people are favoured over other irrationally.

Chaotic society disdains schemas. Humans are not machines and not every piece of human fate can be fit into imperfectable system. A judge or civil official have to decide as human being. He has to take you as whole. When you are judged for crime, it all depends on which judge you get and how he feels, about you, about the crime, about the victim, about the circumstances. Judge A can congratulate you for service to society, judge B can say that there have been enoug mitigating circumstances to warrant only a lesser penalty and judge C may see you hanged.

 

[Treason]

Alright, my own take on these things.

Lawful Good: As a pure alignment, it's the "do-gooder" view point. It encompasses the "Righteous Crusader" and the average decent, law-abiding citizen. They have good intentions, compassion for others, and try to enact, enforce and follows laws that reflect this.

Lawful: The good of the individual is nothing compared to the Rule of Law and the many. Order is paramount in this person's view point. The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. It's not malicious nor uncaring, it's just a total belief and willingness to obey the law, above themselves, above all else.

Lawful Evil: The sorts that follow this personal creed are those that believe in the frame work of law, so that it benefits them above all else. They like working within the rules, as it can give them a sense that they are now superior to anyone else who follows the same, and can exploit others' lawfulness for their personal gain. They work best with other Lawfully inclined individuals, as they can be trusted to follow the rules. They may not give a damn about them personally, but they at least share a commonality in that they all agree that rules, and following/upholding them, are important.

Neutral: Setting aside the idea of "balance," I view this as the epitome of "don't care," or "survival." Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, whatever, so long as I survive. That is all. Anything to survive. Hermits that wish to be left alone are "neutral" in my eye.

Chaotic: Someone who enshrines the ideals of "chaos" loves tearing down order, social norms and laws as they have some sort of personal need to "fight against the man" or whatever constraints are put on them. They're anarchic and believe in the supremacy of personal choice above everything. Often, this is their personal choice, only. To me, this has overtones of being the ultimate in "destructive selfishness." So long as they get and do what they want, that's all they care about. They jump about and follow whatever law or group happens to align with their particular want of the moment, only to abandon it or even tear it down, simply because they wish. Sociopaths (or your typical 16 year-old), to me, are "chaotic" incarnate.

Chaotic Good: Social norms and law are only of use when they fall in line with the individual's ideals of what is or is not "good." Laws are too entrapping for this individual. They might love and respect the laws of their lands/people/whatever, but finds that they just can't get the good that they know can be done, while working within the "strait and narrow." Vigilantes and such, those striking out against what they see as tyrannical laws, decent individuals who genuinely care and have compassion for others but can not stand following the rules of society; these are all chaotic good individuals.

Chaotic Evil: Selfishness, sadism, brutality, all these things are held by those who follow a personal code of "chaotic evil." They are in the "chaotic" inclined individual's selfishness, but it's marked by a callowness, and uncaring attitude for another's pain and suffering, or an active desire to inflict pain and suffering upon another. Psychopaths are a good example of "chaotic evil." They can have friends, they can love, but it's a twisted thing from what is considered the norm.

 

[Viatos]

Since it's a DnD alignment system (with the wrinkle of True Neutral and 'Neutral Neutral' being different, never heard of that before) I'd also like to contribute definitions. Defined by a wiser DM then I:

Guide to DnD Alignment
--------------------------------
Lawful - In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system...
Neutral - In a logical and balanced way...
Chaotic - By whatever means necessary...

Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people.
Neutral - ...maintain balance and justice.
Evil - ...increase your own power and improve your situation.
--------------------------------

The Order is the extreme of Lawful Neutral, a fanatic religion commanded by an undeniably extant god. In many ways, ironically, the extremism of the higher power involved replicate the Chaotic Neutral alignment.

Perpentach is exactly what this system was designed to avoid, a man as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it, known in the DnD lexicon as the phenomena of "Chaotic Stupid". However, Perpentach is also insane, and thus may be considered a Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil leader whose ideas of balance, justice, or improving his situation are so corrupted as to be unrecognizable to others.

Edit: I should also note that this is a guide for making characters in DnD, where the philosophy of apathy beyond personal survival is largely pointless (unlike a movie or a book, where such a character can be Deus Ex Machina'd through the plot as necessary without issue, a roleplaying environment often degrades from such heavy-handed storytelling) and the ability to pre-build characters as sadistic monsters is generally undesirable. Thus, a Chaotic Evil character may not fit an epic fantasy's definiton of EVIL - but since nothing stops someone adding traits like sadism, antipathy towards life, or a universal deathwish to such characters, it doesn't actually conflict it.

 

[KillerClowns]

Sorry I'm late to the party; finally found my original Civ IV disc... anyways.
I don't buy Perpy as Chaotic Neutral, and am a bit iffy about Keelyn as Chaotic Evil.
Perpentach: The man's a psycho, through and through. He's insane, but he's a very nasty sort of insane. I'd say he's quite a bit more likely to torture you to death while giggling and sipping absinthe than to give you a pie and let you go home, and even if you do get the pie, you'll probably find out later it contains your children.
Keelyn is an interesting case; I'd say she better fits Chaotic Neutral, even though under AI control that will usually be a temporary case until she goes AV and gets a hearty shove towards Chaotic Evil. But she's sympathetic and malleable enough that, in different circumstances (especially if she's under somebody's direct control) she could end up an unstable but not actively cruel wildcard, or even a genuinely decent person.

 

[Grey Fox]

I think I agree with that assessment

 

[KillerClowns]

Regarding the Order mechanics and allowing Evil to stay Evil: I've got an idea from a modmod I was planning but eventually scrapped. Make special Order buildings that have two versions, an evil and a good version. For example, an Inquisitor's Office and a Philosopher's Conclave. The Inquisitor's Office would be focused on hunting down those who have unorthodox views of the Order's tenants, while the Philosopher's Conclave would be about studying and interpreting the tenants, which would necessarily result in unorthodox interpretations. Both would render you more lawful, though. You could not build both in the same city, or at the very least, doing so would open up an event that would force you to choose one or the other. The evil versions would focus on building units faster and decreasing maintenance, while good would make units built better and give happiness, health, and other city bonuses.
One last thing. While Junil might be an uptight fanatic, I can't imagine him believing "the ends justify the means," so Evil nations shouldn't be able to build true Order priests. I'd like a "pretender" line of priests for evil nations that are only ostensibly serving Junil, but actually gaining power from, say, Aeron, and Sphener should turn into a Fallen Angel under Evil command, if he's buildable at all to the dark side.

 

[Valkrionn]

Regarding the Order mechanics and allowing Evil to stay Evil: I've got an idea from a modmod I was planning but eventually scrapped. Make special Order buildings that have two versions, an evil and a good version. For example, an Inquisitor's Office and a Philosopher's Conclave. The Inquisitor's Office would be focused on hunting down those who have unorthodox views of the Order's tenants, while the Philosopher's Conclave would be about studying and interpreting the tenants, which would necessarily result in unorthodox interpretations. Both would render you more lawful, though. You could not build both in the same city, or at the very least, doing so would open up an event that would force you to choose one or the other. The evil versions would focus on building units faster and decreasing maintenance, while good would make units built better and give happiness, health, and other city bonuses.
One last thing. While Junil might be an uptight fanatic, I can't imagine him believing "the ends justify the means," so Evil nations shouldn't be able to build true Order priests. I'd like a "pretender" line of priests for evil nations that are only ostensibly serving Junil, but actually gaining power from, say, Aeron, and Sphener should turn into a Fallen Angel under Evil command, if he's buildable at all to the dark side.

Actually, that's rather similar to what Thomas.Berubeg is wanting to do with his Religious Schisms.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

While I rather like the idea of mutually exclusive religion specific buildings emphasizing different aspects of a faith (iirc Kael had already begun adding such "Advanced Temples to the main mod back in version 0.15 or so but they unfortunately got cut around the time I discovered the game), connecting the Order with Philosophers makes no sense at all. A Philosophers Conclave clearly sounds like an Empyrean building.

I'm not sure I really see the need for seperate units for the evil, false priests. You could simply make the spells available to them depend on alignment.


I was planning a while back to give CoE access to False Priests of every religion. (I long suspected that the corrupted Order that took over the Bannor Empire and persecuted all true believers was actually led by members of the Council of Esus. The Bazaar of Mammon pedia entry may imply that it was actually the Stewards of Inequity instead, but those two groups are known to be closely allied so ti could be both.) They would look real, have the same name, and even have promotions that look just like the real ones, but would not have the same spells. Actually, I'm not sure if I really wanted them to have any spells, except of course having access to Inquisition, which would work a bit differently for them. They would be allowed to use the spell in lands having the state religion that they appear to follow, and would be especially effective in removing their apparent/the owner's state religion from a city. As I had also planned to allow disciples access to a "Evangelist" promotion that allows them to spread their religion to other already built units, these would of course be able to spread CoE to units too.

Of course, the inability to let CoE civ's appear as if they have a different State Religion and Alignment makes this deception less effective.

In some of my versions I remove the State Religion prereq for Priests, but add the prereq to their spells. (On the extremes the priests gain alignment restrictions though.) That makes the False Priests a bit better, but still not perfect.