Behaviours

There appears to have been some major changes to the good old alignment system, which appears to have at least quieted down arguments about how to interpret it. Much like some other changes, however, it seems less than well-reasoned.

Naturally, some of the confusion deals with strict interpretations of Law and Chaos. Mostly, those are thought of as law-abiding and anarchistic. While that is a broad interpretation, I think it falls well short of the panoply of nuance available. Additionally, with a modern view of 'good' and 'evil', it can seem contradictory at times. How can one be Lawful, as in law-abiding, and Evil, as in spurning societal norms, at the same time? In the same way, how can one be Good (promoting the common weal) and Chaotic (disruptive of laws)? How can one be Neutral in regards to either?

This is where a more flexible interpretation is helpful. We can start with Law being dedication to the group over the individual. In that case, someone who is aligned with Law would be someone who strives to maintain a community or party, sometimes at the expense of an individual, or smaller group. As long as that group has a voice in the process, they are part of the collective whole, and the whole is stronger for it. Chaos, then, is the exaltation of the individual more than the group. The focus of someone aligned with Chaos would hold the belief that the smaller group or individual should be allowed to decide for themselves what is appropriate, without interference from the larger group. Each voice has its own quality, regardless of the notions of the group, and this adds to the richness of the tapestry of life.

Alternately, Law can be seen as 'organization' or 'hierarchy'. Each has their place in the great machinery, and society works because everyone has their job to perform. Structure informs everyone's day, task, family, or any other aspect of their lives, which keeps society running smoothly. Chaos would be more akin to the disorganized mess of individual effort, leading to unbounded creativity, each reaping the benefits of one another's unrestricted expression.

It's not all wine and roses, of course. In the first example, excessive adherence to the principles of the whole over the smaller group can easily lead to oppression, cold indifference, or even antipathy for the smaller group. Generally, the smaller group would eventually be exiled; either by the leaders or themselves. In extreme cases, the smaller group may be eliminated by the larger, as their refusal to adhere to the mores of the group are considered a disease that threatens the whole. Conversely, too much focus on the smaller groups leads to a mass of bickering factions, each of which struggling for power while people are starving in the streets.

In all these cases, there are beneficial and harmful aspects to a particular ethos. Those are where the morality of 'good' and 'evil' influence the expression of an ethos. Of course, the ethos can also influence the expression of the morality, wherein the good Ranger tends to help out a few people at a time, as they don't seem able to gather enough forces to themselves to ride against the evil necromancer directly. Or, the evil inquisitor brings every legal nuance to bear against the hapless political opponent accused of heresy.

Alignment is a very useful tool in fleshing out a character, and providing a background for their motivations. It can, and has, been subverted into a mechanic to lash PCs, to be sure. It certainly isn't the necessary outcome, however. A bit of flexibility, and alignment can set the stage for epic quests and everyday behaviours alike, without forcing unnatural responses from the players.