Alignment shifts[edit source]

I think we going to need something about alignment shifts Programmer 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Done. --The Krit 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stable law[edit source]

A recent edit added "and stability" to the things embraced by Law. Is that accurate? To me, stability seems more about people being in agreement than about what they agree on. (For example, the process of conversion is inherently unstable, as it seeks change. Yet, converting the chaotic to lawful would cleanly fall under the lawful alignment, would it not?) --The Krit (talk) 21:07, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree about stability, though it will be a slightly subtle point to some. And, as a broader observation, I would think many of the article's examples are flawed when viewed with an eye to possible exceptions. For example, there may be many instances where an LE agent will do things without regard to honesty or trustworthiness. Or, regardless of the moral dimension, a lawful person might endure/encourage all sorts of chaos (e.g. wars) in order to ultimately promote the dominance of a more preferred set of laws or hierarchy or structure. And, many actions might seem either lawful or chaotic depending on whether they are evaluated from a long-term or short-term perspective. I fear any attempt to come up with definitive examples is going to fail at some level. Anyway, for purposes of the wiki edit, I don't find the interpretation of lawfulness as promoting stability to be especially helpful, as it seems to conflate the two. An anarchy that endures may be stable but not lawful.
IMO, a less abstract effect of alignments in NWN is to allow/inhibit certain game mechanics, e.g. spells with different effects, smites, etc. And, of course, when enforced for PCs, to provide for some balance in character builds by restricting certain class combinations or introducing trade-offs to them (e.g. no paladin/RDDs with tumble or UMD, etc.). The article seems to spend more time on the RP aspects of alignment, but it might be useful to discuss the concrete mechanics more and the interpretation-dependent RP aspects less. - MrZork (talk) 12:04, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussing alignments with an eye to possible exceptions typically leads to a morass of not being able to say anything. I was referring to the typical, general, normal cases (into which I believe law opposing chaos falls). Stability generally occurs when people agree on the status quo, provided the status quo is sustainable. The latter condition is easier to obtain when working from a lawful system, but that's due to the predictability -- it's easier to obtain any desired outcome (even non-sustainability) when working from a lawful system. The former condition is more about homogeneity of thought than it is about what those thoughts are.
    I have a similar objection to using "war" as an example of chaos. I'll grant that there is a lot of disorder in war ("chaotic" in the colloquial sense), but why would it be considered a tool only of those who promote individual freedom? That's probably the same sort of linguistic confusion that made someone describe the lawful alignment (rather than legislative laws) as embracing stability. --The Krit (talk) 05:15, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.