From 1e, I am used to AL as Lawful Evil, etc. The concept of tendencies is not problem: LE(N) or even LE(n) to distinguish the strength of the tendency.
But more and more I have been seeing such alignments as Lawfully Evil. When did this come about? I very much dislike it because it seems to place an emphasis on the second element, Evil. His Evil is Lawful, whereas someone who’s Lawfulness is Evil would be Evilly Lawful, which I have never seen.
Wolfsire, I read your post and wanted to give a good response if I could but I must admit I had a difficult time understanding the question. If I understood you right, your wondering why the shift towards Evil versus Lawful (EL instead of LE), am I right? _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
If I understand correctly; originally the alignment system was based more on the Lawful/Chaos axis which became more complex with the tendancies brackets. However lately articles have been stressing a simplier Good/Evil dynamic; so it is either a meanless writers mistake that has been adopted or a means to highlight the Good/Evil aspect.
Hi all -
What Wolfsire (a Fellow LV'n) is saying is not that the difference in alignment has changed, but he's wondering if a focus in 3.x and maybe 4th ed is changing. Someone is now Lawful Evil. This is equal parts Lawful and Evil. But with a Lawfully Evil person, it seems to say that the person is more Lawful in their approach, but that they are still evil. They follow the laws (even if those laws are wrong to today's concepts [or even a 800 AD timeline, such as breaking and entering like our good adventurers do]). These people would be doing evil because the laws are evil, or because the laws allow the person to do evil. Whereas Evillaly Lawful would be out to do harm, only limiting their pain, torture and Evil by the limits of the law.
A Chaoticially Good person would similiary be more concerned about the randomness of Chaos and the world, and would prefer a more good bent than an evil one in their randomness.
A Goodly Neutral person (something I would say I may be) would really be more about being nice to each person, whether the laws permitted it or not. Like when I'm in the Jeep and I'm driving 85 in a 35 school zone - I make sure that I dodge the little kids (I don't want to hit them, because that would be bad, plus unlawful, but driving that fast doesn't make me evil).
With this concept the alignments can be expanded to 17 (Right? Still only 1 Neutral!). Thus Paladins could be either Lawfully Good or Goodly Lawful. Do they follow the core rules of a land (what if slavery is okay, or beating your wife on Sundays at the courthose), even though they know the laws are bad. A Goodly Lawful Paladin would likely not be willing to beat his wife (even if the switch was only as wide as his thumb), because it's not nice. I also think this would be much harder to play. Because really, adventuring is an adventure in breaking and entering and murder. Pre-meditated Murder. 187. MurderDeathKill.
Now, to my fellow of the Valley (not the Mage kind of Valley), I can't answer to where the concept has started or where it will end. I haven't personally seen it (but then again, I don't read - which really saddens me - I just collect all those damn books). So if you point me in the right direction, then I'll be willing to read to see it and see if I've mis-understood your conceptual question.
Be Well. Happy Holidays.
Theocrat Issak _________________ Theocrat Issak
TheocratIssak, you understood what I was getting at, but interstingly took the emphasis in the opposite direction. I wrote: "it seems to place an emphasis on the second element, evil". You wrote: "But with a Lawfully Evil person, it seems to say that the person is more Lawful in their approach". I, like you have not read any 3+ rules, and very little of 2e. I am not going anywhere near 4e.
You also raised a lot of possibililities.
For those confused, I guess a good starting point is to ask is the "-ly" actually part of the rules? and are their seperate AL like LE and EL? _________________ Plar of Poofy Pants
... I guess a good starting point is to ask is the "-ly" actually part of the rules? and are their seperate AL like LE and EL?
Those are not the rules presented in D&D v.3.5. There is no "-ly" suffix to denote tendency. Lawful Evil means a character is obedient to established laws and authority and respects a certain code of order, even honor. And, the same person is willing to hurt and oppress others. The "tendencies" to be a tyrant and a dominator are implied.
The 3.5 convention is to articulate the personality's position on the Law and Chaos axis first, and then its disposition on the Good and Evil axis second. So, no matter how lawful or how evil a character is, it is just standard to note lawful evil in that order, even if one paradigm is stronger than an another in a character's personality.
"Lawfully Evil" is just an oddball way of saying "Lawful Evil". I noticed this too in some articles and I'm not sure why people are using this terminology at all. Perhaps it stems from some other game system. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
While we're at it, how strong of a factor is alignment in your games? As a player or DM, for wolfsire or anyone else. IMC, I like to use alignment as a guide to roleplaying, and less of a strict definition for PCs. However, many of my players seem to feel they "must" follow a certain path of behavior, defined by alignment, and to deviate (even for story or gameplay) would be "out of character". Some classes, like paladins and clerics, are held to a stricter standard, but that's because of the nature of the class. Anyway, I'm just curious how other folks treat alignment.
Wolfsire: Yeah, the "-ly" appendage to alignments is just someone's style of writing I think. Nothing in any edition (yet) of the rules has an official "-ly" alignment, and alignment tendencies were only really discussed in 2e. Lately, however, there has been a lot more emphasis in game products in the Evil vs Good axis, and far less Law vs Chaos. _________________ Greyhawk is dead; long live Greyahwk! It is not heresy; I will not recant!
An issue I have always had trouble coming to terms with is the alignment, chaotic evil. I can understand the alignment concept, but have a hard time believing an empire or civilization could ever be described as chaotic evil. How would the empire retain cohesion? If the most powerful rules then he rules through a set of laws, even if they are not codified--they are his own. If anyone in his kingdom would chose to dispute those laws, they are destroyed. I have always seen Iuz ruling his empire according to a planned agenda and forcing all those weaker than himself to submit or be destroyed. His minions may squabble among themselves, but they submit to their master's "laws" or are eliminated. What are some of your thoughts on Chaotic Evil empires?
On law and chaos: I've always leaned toward the idea of predictability vs unpredictability, disciplined vs scattered, ordered vs fluctuating. Laws are generally more for lawfully aligned beings, but even an intelligent chaotic creature is going to follow laws if its in his best interest. So even the Old One has laws that he expects his minions to follow, even if he is above those same laws. It is true, however, that a chaotic society, especially a C/E one, is unlikely to flourish since most folk won't follow the laws of the land. That's why I generally don't create Chaotic nations, except briefly; they are doomed to fail. _________________ Greyhawk is dead; long live Greyahwk! It is not heresy; I will not recant!
Even though a long read; it is one of the most concise and well written articles on the alignment system I have read - well worth a look.
It even has an alignment quiz at the end - enjoy.
I have always found the system constraining especially with such spells as Know Alignment and Detect Good/Evil or the alignment language; too often it becomes a simplistic litmus test - He is evil attack.
...and alignment tendencies were only really discussed in 2e. Lately, however, there has been a lot more emphasis in game products in the Evil vs Good axis, and far less Law vs Chaos.
While it may be true that the word "tendencies" was not used until 2e,
the concept may predate it. In the 1E Dieties & Demigods, the cosmology presented as nine alignments, but 17 planes of alignment.
Thus, while Hades is "neutral (absolute) evil" and the Abyss is "absolute chaotic evil", the plane of Tarterus is of an alignment somewhere in between. This "grey area" was even colored grey in the diagrams and is described as "neutral / chaotic evil".
A later generation might call this Nuetral Evil (with chaotic tendencies) or Chaotic Evil (with Nuetral tendencies). _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
