Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism Section once again

The first citation is original research and the second citation doesn't even criticize the system--in fact, the writer goes on to PRAISE Gary Gygax's system. Obviously who ever has written it has done so with an axe to grind. I am removing it. 98.244.243.96 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawful Evil block text source

I do not know exactly how to footnote on wikipedia, but that text comes directly from players handbook 3.5, pg 105.24.47.151.201 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Description of Lawful Evil

The description of this alignment says: "Characters of this alignment show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits: while they typically obey their superiors and keep their word...". Doesn't it violate the NPOV (no/neutral point of view) policy to insist that obeying superiors is a "desirable trait"?

Anyone who (1) does not want to be randomly mauled by a chaotic evil party member or (2) have his throat slipped by a neutral evil party member while he is sleeping. It is a desirable alignment if one wants to rest assured that the scoundrel's betrayal has an elaborate and internally consistent rationale. By the time s/he's thought of one, you could be halfway to Timbuktu.

Think of a malignant genie bound to your lamp- far less immediately dangerous then a simple cutthroat or a crazed marauder.24.47.151.201 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Best/Worst

Resolved

Okay, somebody needs to edit through the "Best/Worst/etc you can be" statements added at the end of each summary. If someone wants to add the benefits or why one might be that alignment, go ahead, but at least change the context.

The Best/Worst statements are direct quotes from the System Reference Document. --Roninbk 06:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic Evil all claim to be the most dangerous alignment, which contradicts itself. It's presumably clear that Evil is a dangerous alignment, but we've to either remove the contradicting claims from all three alignments, or designate one of them as the true "most dangerous" alignment.

All the Good ones claim to be the best one. The contradiction is one of choice, if it were not the best, why would you choose it?

The excerpts are from roleplaying guidelines which describe the alignments subjectively. The best / worst statements lose a lot of meaning outside of that context, and I agree that they should be cut. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, they already have been. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of pronouns

After seeing a rather rude comment made by one editor (see edit note of this edit) regarding the genders of the pronouns used. I realized it was only a matter of before someone comes and changes the whole thing to female pronouns, and then someone back to male pronouns, and we get into an argument about which is better.

I have changed all the pronouns to plurals (and have made the appropriate grammatical changes also). This does make sense, since the alignments ‘‘are’’ describing groups of people, not individuals. The article even explains how individuals do not necessarily stick to their alignments 100%. This way, all the descriptions are talking about groups of people, instead of one example character.

It also makes the article more consistent, since previously, there were sections scattered here and there which were in plural, with most of the article in singular. --Yaksha 10:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Odd examples

There are some odd examples. Riddik is not evil, obviously. He is neutral, maybe even good. Desert Punk is neutral, also certainly not evil..also..what happened to the criticism section? It was certainly valid. im not sure where the reaserch came from, but it is a common criticism of the game. the idea of dividing characters along that axis is uncomfortable for many, even in a game.

The examples, if done correctly, were taken from a D&D book so they are valid in that sense. The criticism section, if properly sourced, definitely does belong in the article, I will agree. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The trouble here is that Riddick is a violent murderer. He has no trouble with killing anybody who gets in his way, including the innocent. He was going to leave the others behind on that deadly planet, which no Good character would even consider doing. Just because he can be rather charming at times, does not make him good. It's likely that he becomes a Chaotic Neutral character by the end of the sequel and Games. But he is NOT Good. Harley Quinn hyenaholic (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to blow in, but I have to say that seeing Riddick classed as CE was just so jarring to the senses. Yes he kills with little thought, but never the complete/truly innocent (eg children)! And you are right that he doesn't go out of his way to save random people (condemned criminals I believe?), but he does go to save those he cared about, isn't that drive of personal relationships in the definition of Neutral? He is an anti-hero, but one with his own code of honour, which I can't imagine to be as CE. Up him to CN yeah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.88.39 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to change the toc

I would like to change the toc to:

Good

Chaotic good:

Neutral good:

Lawful good:

etc. It could also be:

Lawful

Lawful Good:

Lawful Neutral:

Lawful Chaotic:

etc. What do people think? I'll fix all the links that pertain to the change. - Peregrinefisher 07:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how either of these two TOC layouts is any better than what we currently have. So i think it'll just be a lot of work on your part for not so much benefit. But i'm not oppossed to it if you'll go change all the links. --Yaksha 07:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

<User: Xylenz, Feb 5 2007> I was going to suggest the same thing. The reason is that most people take the easiest way to mentally organize an idea, often tending towards dualistic bipolarism. For example people mistakenly insist on organizing political views along a single axis: liberal<->conservative. This is a gross simplification of the real breath of political views that completely distorts the model away from any degree of usefulness.

As a result of this tendency to oversimplify for the ease of understanding, alignment is generally NOT viewed as a biaxial matrix. It is seen as a linear progression where LG is seen as "more good" than CG and so on. This over-simplistic distortion of the model is enforced by traditionally listing LG at one end and CE at the other. Listing them in a different order would help deny that this is the case.

Either suggestion would be better than the way it is traditionally done. I prefer the first way simply because it forces the reader to recognize that there is no linear progression of morality. Listing the G-E axis in one direction and the C-L axis in the other direction as tradition has imposed would break the assumption that causes this confusion. Its a great idea.

Criticism section

I have removed the criticism section because it seems mainly to be original research with POV tendencies and does not have any sources cited. Here is the most recent text:

Criticism
The law-versus-chaos axis has generated some controversy and confusion. Different books, and even different parts in the same book, have interpreted law and chaos to mean different things. Among its different interpretations are a person's feelings on government and laws, a person's sense of honour, how orderly and logical a person's mind works, how flexible a person's mind is, whether a person prefers cities or countryside, and even how orderly a person likes to keep his or her house.

Gygax portrayed in his original Advanced Dungeons and Dragons that the purest good was neutral good because it is goodness for its own sake, but most players consider lawful good as the epitome of goodness. Later versions of Dungeons & Dragons reference material, minus the direct contribution of Gary Gygax, support the latter view occasionally, but recent editions have varied in their portrayal of alignment. Some prefer Gygax's complex description of alignment in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide, first edition. Others prefer the descriptions from the recent 3.5 edition of Dungeons and Dragons, cited above from the System Reference Document.

The system has also been criticized for ethical reasons. Some critics within and outside the role-playing comunity argue that calling labelling a person (as opposed to an act) as good or evil is not only a gross oversimplification -even psychopaths do good deeds- but inherently, ethically wrong. It should not be practiced even in a game.

Others critics say that it might be acceptable to label individuals as good or evil. These people have criticized not so much this system when used to classify and describe individuals morality as the fact that entire races and species are classified as belonging to one category. This can make genocide (speciecide?) of sentient races and species classified as evil morally justifiable. Classifying their victims as evil is precisely what perpetrators of genocide did historically. Of course, defenders argue that the system does not have to be interpreted that way and that there is a great difference between genocide of fictional races in a game and the real thing against real humans. Some role-players, however, find the idea of justifiable genocide inherent in the D&D alignment system and repugnant even as a game. Critics of role-playing use it as an argument against role-playing in general, despite the fact that only a minority of role-playing games have an alignment system and not all of these classify entire races and species according to an alignment system.

It's good to see Sensemaker has added this back in with references. Should there be a link to that "Order of the Stick" comic? If I've missed it or misread it, somebody please poke me before I make more of an idiot of myself. Morgrim 01:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Morgrim. As to your question about the 'Order of the Stick'-link: the reason I have added the link to this comic is that it is another case of someone criticizing the system of having entire races characterized as evil, which makes moral choices ridiculously simple and could be used to justify genocide. Note what it says on this comics page. Miko is asking how the characters could be sure the dragon wasn't a good dragon and the answer is simply that good dragons are gold-colored. Dragons are color-coded for the convenience of the potential dragon-slayer.

Sensemaker

I'm going to put back the reference to Hitler Youth. It is a quote and if you take away that sentence you are not quoting the entire argument which is pretty much the same as misquoting. Besides, removing this part removes James Desborough's and Steve Mortimer's point. Geez, first some guy removes the criticism section for lack of references and now guys are removing my references. I've already lost the reference to the Order of the Stick without making a fuss of it but I'm not gonna allow James Desborough and Steve Mortimer to be misquoted. Sensemaker 11:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

... The Munchkin's Guide to Power Gaming is a work of SATIRE. It's not intended to be taken seriously in whole or in part, and quoting it as an "argument" against the D&D alignment system is shoddy research at best, axe-grinding at worst. Iceberg3k 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! Now someone has put up a warning about original research. I have written eight lines of text and it has three sources referenced. It was four before somone took a reference out. That must be among the highest rates of references per text in the wikipedia I have ever seen. Some people seem to be really bad at taking criticism of their role-playing game. I have played Dungeons and Dragons but I can take criticism of it. Sensemaker 11:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Incoherent mess, and utterly irrelevant to the purpose of describing D&D's alignment system. "Inherently, ethically wrong"? "Should not be practiced, even in a game?" Get real. It's a GAME, dammit. If you don't like the alignment mechanics, take them out. But we've got enough nerd fights in this hobby already without people complaining about the alignment system in D&D being BadWrongFun. Sheesh. Iceberg3k 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The ENTIRE SECTION is original research. There is nothing that is properly cited. Of the citations included, two are works of satire, and thus really should not been used (I actually removed the quote from "Munchkin's Guide to Power Gaming" because not only is it a work of satire, but its inclusion is basically used as an ad hominem fallacy). The third is a scholarly work on psychopathy which has absolutely nothing to do with gaming whatsoever. The problem is not criticism of D&D, the problem is that the criticisms cited here are utter irrelevancies, and based on a hyper-simplistic interpretation of the alignment system that the game books explicitly discourage.

If there is not an attempt to better document the criticism section made before Saturday, February 10, I will comment out the section until such attempt is made. Use sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. Works of satire don't meet those standards. Iceberg3k 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism section is commented out. If you have documentation of the claims raised in it, feel free to put that documentation in and remove the comment brackets. Iceberg3k 14:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, what I wrote under criticism has been edited and reduced so that it is no loger logically coherent. It would seem there are far too many people out there who find it hard to take any serious criticism of their role-playing game (as opposed to silly rants from people who don't really know anything about role-playing) for an article explaining somewhat valid criticism to survive reasonably intact very long. While I find this sad, I have to accept it as a clearly demonstrated fact. I do not have the time and energy to keep explaining and putting the article back to a coherent state, nor do I wish to see it hacked beyond recognition. Therefore I have removed everything I have written on this subject. Please do not put anything I have written back. Write something of your own instead. I shall no longer watch this article and will not answer any further comments. Good day to you all. -Sensemaker

Well that was the most childish thing I've seen yet. The disclaimer on the submission page warns that your content will be edited at will by other users. And it wasn't logically coherent anyway; you had two references that were satirical works and one that had nothing to do with the subject and that makes for a big fat zero in the reference category, so it WAS, in fact, 100% original research. Not that you're going to read this anyway, since you've clearly taken your ball and gone home. Iceberg3k 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"...you had two references that were satirical works..."

But can't satirizing something sometimes be a way of criticizing it (therefore something that made fun of the alignment system could be criticizing it)?

A text on human behavior would indeed be quite relevant to a criticism of a game mechanic that attempts to simulate it. As for satire, I do not understand why Jonathan Swift's a Modest Proposal would be less worthy of citation then a straight polemic against British atrocities in Ireland. A satirical work by definition makes an argument. I do not understand why it has been decided that arguments made thus cannot be cited. This seems quite an arbitrary convention to me. 24.47.151.201 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GNU vs OGL SRD conflict

The GNU for Wikipedia is not the same as the OGL for the SRD and using the material directly copied word for word form the SRD on Wikipedia doesn't comply with the OGL from Wizards.

Q: How do I use various Open Game licenses in a joint project?

A: Generally speaking, Open Game licenses are mutually incompatible. Each requires an exclusive, invariant set of licensing terms, and most Open Game licenses explicitly forbid adding additional terms.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123g

shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you're just trying to help in removing the OGL stuff, but leaving the page half blank is really quite ugly. It would have been nice if you'd bothered to investigate a little, and tracked down the version of the article when the OGL stuff was added.

I've now restored all the alignment information from before this edit. This is the edit where a editor added the OGL notice and made a lot of major changes to all the alignment sections. I've reverted all the sections to before this version, and changed pronouns to plural. --`/aksha 08:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure I understood the Q&A before I added anything back that may conflict between the SRD and GNU. Unfortunately nobody was "available" at WotC yesterday to answer the question further. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about whether you should have removed it or not. I already said that i understand you're trying to help. I just thought it was irresponsible to leave the pages in a complete blank. No mater what their licensing says, there's nothing wrong with writing about the alignments. So if you removed the copied version, you could have either restored an ealier version, or just written a sentence or two about each of the alignments yourself. I'm sure you know enough about them to pull something out. It would have made the article look a lot nicer than leaving a blanks. As for the titles like "benefactor", i think they're alright regardless of what SRD licensing says. Because they're quotes. And you can't copyright/put licensing onto single words. --`/aksha 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if there are other articles that link to some of the alignment sections, it doesn't mean the sections are correct. There are only 9 alignments like it says, but there are 12 listed. The strongly CN is not an alignment, and the druidic and normal True Neutral are both True Neutral they do not need seperation. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

no one's saying they are. Links can be fixed if someone can be bothered doing a "what links here".

the article currently does show 9 alignments, not 12. Strong CN, True Neutral and Druidic neutral are clearly listed as "sub alignments" since they use a lower level header. From what the article currently says, True Neutral and druidic neutral sounds like different things. Or at least druidic neutral as a subset of true neutral. As for strong CN, it's there because it was on the "chaotic neutral" article which i merged. --`/aksha 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Specific Characters

Kudos to whoever it was that added examples of different types of people that fall under the alignment categories. But, in addition to that, should we add examples of characters, fictional or otherwise that fall into the categories? Here's how I think it would be:

Lawful Good

(Main Text) (General Example) Batman, Master Chief are examples of Lawful Good characters. Other Lawful good ones might be Spock and Captain Picard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.19.167 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Robin Hood in the "Prince of Thieves" interpretation where he is a noble who lost his land to an lawful evil regime, and fights to restore the reign of the rightful king.

Batman is not lawful good, he is a damn vigilanty for fucks sack, by just doing what he does he is breaking the laws, he would be be neutral good character. Captain Picard is an example of Lawful Good. oh and Robin hood is chaotic neutral by the way.

Sorry but they are listed in the source. Also retain your civility or you might get blocked. Kotiwalo (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of argument (to get it clear out of the way), would we want this article to reflect accurate information relevant to the issue (i.e., Batman being a vigilante =/= Lawful Good), or should it be left as is regardless of the source material, as it would be considered incorrect by how the topic is described? And no, Robin Hood would be considered Chaotic Good by most iterations.--75.111.56.57 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to go with our sources. It's how we solve disagreements on wikipedia, we go with the source regardless of what we think. We could say "According to..." if we think it is way off, to show it isn't us that thinks so. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Good

(MT) (GE) Captain Kirk j@5h+u15y@nClick Here for a random page... 15:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Chaotic Good

(MT) (GE) Vash the Stampede, Gordon Freeman, Groo the Wanderer are examples of Chaotic Good characters.

Lawful Neutral

(MT) (GE) Excel 343 Guilty Spark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.100.219 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

(MT) (GE)

True Neutral

(MT) (GE)

Druidic True Neutral

(MT) (GE) Ecco the Dolphin

Chaotic Neutral

(MT) (GE)

Strongly Chaotic Neutral

(MT) (GE) Havik

Lawful Evil

(MT) (GE) Dr. No, Darth Vader, Tony Soprano

Neutral Evil

(MT) (GE) Desert Punk

Chaotic Evil

(MT) (GE) Carnage

Also, one of the D&D handbooks (Don't remember which, I was flipping through it at a bookstore) has all of the alignments explained like we have on the article, but at the end, it said "(This alignment) is the best alignment because..." Course, it's kind of wierd how it says all of them are the best. Oh well. If somebody knows which book it is, could you please put it on the article? Feel free to expand on this if you have any more ideas. --Averross 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This would be a great idea, but it's too easy to argue about it. I might call Master Chief a neutral good character because he sometimes questions his orders or does things his own way. Excel could be more of a neutral character just because she's so wishy-washy about everything. I think it's a good thing to think about and try to list for personal use or to discuss in a D&D group, but in the end it's not a sure thing. --Durahan

Yes, i know what you're talking about. All the "this alignment is the best because..." used to be on there, but was removed, along with all the alignment names (like "crusader" for lawful good and so on). See the section above titled "GNU vs OGL SRD conflict". A lot of the stuff on there used to word for word from the SRD...and was removed because of copyright problems.

Meaning...we have to write the sections in our own words. But i personally think having the titles, and the "this alignment is best because..." lines are fine. As long as they're put in intalics and quotes. Since quoting is not covered by copyright, as long as we reference to quotes to whereever they come from. Not sure though, we need someone who's familiar with how copyright works.

As for the examples, i don't agree. We'll get into arguments about what alignment characters are. Arguments about how many and which characters to list (i can imagine a LOT of superhero type characters falling into chaotic good or lawful good). And characters outside of D&D aren't designed to fall into one of these moral/lawful categories, so classifying them would be just arbitrary. --`/aksha 00:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's a bad idea to include examples. I think the current examples should be removed. The alignment system has always been a horribly subjective system and no one will ever unanimously agree on what character is what alignment. I say remove it and begone with it. 75.15.167.122 (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we should leave those that are sourced in the Complete Scoundrel. We have an exact sourced and official list and it is helpful for readers' comprehension to have examples, although we should keep an eye for rogue insertions of unsourced examples. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

i know none of the others, but i dont consider batman all that lawfull myself. is he not neutral good? Also i think robin hood makes a perfect example of a chaotic good character. dont think all these characters should be added to the article though--Lygophile 19:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither was I, that's why I asked. Plus, I would consider Batman lawful good. He fights for the good of all people and upholds the law in every way. Plus, there would be nothing that could be said that would turn him against his beloved city. --Averross 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah but he is the type that takes justice in his own hands. and i dont think he has legally been given permission to drive an unlicensed vehical at the speeds that he does. his methods are sure illegal, hence i dont consider him lawfull. he does indeed, fight for the good of all people in general, and that would make one neutral good. lawfull good would be the arrogant by the book nazi assholes, that fight for upholding some law desinged by whomever doubtfull powerjunky, as some blind devouts that desperately cling on to their feeling of elevation they get from forfilling their "duties", and they are NOT those that fight for the good of all people, only those that think like them (other sheeple). you got those two mixed up. (did i not mention i resent lawfull?)--Lygophile 14:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Batman is clearly not Lawful, as he acts in total defiance of the law. He is at best Neutral Good, if not downright chaotic. 91.109.156.83 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To say that Lawful Good characters are arrogant book nazis a-holes is a generalization. I am sure SOME are by the book but not necessarily arrogant nor nazi. There are those who believe in order that benefits people. A lawful good character isn't necessarily going to follow the laws of some evil tyrant. Luke Skywalker rebelled against the evil empire but he was lawful good in that he wanted order that was not oppressive and cruel. Azn Clayjar 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

skywalker....hmm, perhaps. high fantasy hmm..allways order vs order where everything chaotic is neutral. but i dont remember any other movie where the protagonist was lawfull. i can think of million neutral and chaotic protagonists in a second though. all of skywalkers friends surely are either neutral or chaotic, outside of maybe his sister. he is frodo, who is probably lawfull as well, but they are simple people that venture out in the wide world. protagonists are allways rebels in a way, struggling either lawfull good, neutral or evil.--Lygophile 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Remember, unless you can quote an article stating these non-D&D characters as being one alignment or another, this is original research, and not suitable for Wikipedia. --Reveilled 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead of you there. See the Character list section below. -- Kesh 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete Scoundrel, published in January '07, explicitly identifies Batman as being Lawful Good. Iceberg3k 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that while it is good that you are looking for refrences, in this case citing a D&D book where the author is guessing that Han Solo's alignment (a character that is a property of lucasfilm, and has no relation to WoTC) is of no higher quality research than any opinion posted here. Similarly, it has no actual authority to speculate accurately that Batman would be lawful good. If it contained a quote from George Lucas stating that Han Solo was neutral or Bob Kane suggesting that Batman was lawful good, that would be one thing. I would recomend removing the Complete Scoundrel citation, as it is of no particular value. MadTigger (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that this entire article is about D&D alignments? A D&D book is therefore authoritative. If the creators of D&D use such examples to explain the alignments in the game, then the article should state that a D&D sourcebook cites such examples. =Axlq 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The D&D book in question is a minor book written by nobody important. I glanced about the web, and I could not even verify that the authors were employees of WoTC, or if WoTC was simply acting as a publishing agent for their d20 system open source book. Was this written by Gary Gygax? Dave Cook? Any author of consequence in the D&D realm? Perhaps if this material appeared in the PHB, or DMG (any edition at all), it might have some weight. It looks like a third party's speculation to me. I could spout off about alignment and publish it, that doesn't mean it is a notable source.

Go look at the suggestion that Azn Clayjar made in the characters section below. That is an outstanding suggestion that would do away with any speculation entirely.MadTigger (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Complete Scoundrel isn't a minor book, it's a book in the Complete... series of class-specific supplements (note WoTC calls it a "supplement", not an "accessory" which would be minor), intended to be a comprehensive and consistent series of supplements. These are generally used as primary sourcebooks for options to specific classes. The Complete... books are official sourcebooks published by WoTC. If it were published by some third party, you might have a case, but that isn't the case here.

I, too, disagree with some of the examples (e.g. Sawyer from Lost). However, this article makes no claim about the alignment of certain examples. This article takes care to explain what the sourcebook claims about alignments. Used thus, the examples are cited properly. Writing "Complete Scoundrel presents Indiana Jones as an example of lawful good" is a 100% true and factual statement. You may disagree with the assessment (I consider Indiana Jones to be chaotic, myself), but the fact that an official sourcebook says it cannot be denied, and should be mentioned for encyclopedic purposes. =Axlq 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Playing the 'alignment guessing' game is a passtime that dates back several decades, and there is rarely 100% agreement on any person/character/sentient blob monster's moral standing. Either the article needs to identify that it is largely conjecture in some fashion, or drop the samples all together. You could spend years arguing about this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadTigger (talk • contribs) 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I take back my comment about Luke being Lawful good then since that can't be verified. Azn Clayjar 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not too late to comment, you can't be Lawful Good and a nazi, since LG characters can't be racist, according to the Player's Handbook, and they aren't blindly law-abiding, either. Lawful Good characters fight for justice; Lawful Neutral characters fight for Law in itself. Custodes 09:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference between LG and LN characters, IMO, is that LG characters believe in the concept of natural law, that natural law is essentially good in nature (the Christian conception of natural law, i.e. "God's Law") and that when natural law conflicts with positive law (man-made laws), natural law should win. LN characters don't believe in natural law, or believe that natural law is inferior to positive law. Iceberg3k 14:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable, though I can't remember seeing it in any D&D book. Custodes 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, this is HUGE doses of IMO here. It's not an officially sanctioned interpretation, it's my interpretation. And that's why it's not on the main article page ;) Iceberg3k 14:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Chaotic Neutral Article

I was looking for the basis upon which the Chaotic Neutral article was removed and replaced with a redirect to this article, and was unable to find it. Could someone enlighten me, or link to the talk page where this was discussed? --Reveilled 02:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I reckon a month is long enough. I assume this was deleted by accident, and I'ma go ahead and restore it. --Reveilled 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

umm...i originally merged the article. Because...well, one certain D&D alignment really isn't notable enough for an article of it's own. I don't know why it got deleted, but someone really should re-merge it. Before we get articles popping out for all 9 of the alignments. --`/aksha 13:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was exactly the intention, that the originally quite short descriptions of the original article could then be expanded into more fully fledged articles for each of the nine alignments. --Reveilled 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

i dont think any single allignment would deserve an article of its own. the find the use and comparrison of these allignments as used in d&d informative, but some talk of some alligment used in a system of some boardgame doesnt make an article. Lygophile has spoken 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The alignments don't have any notability outside the game, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle 11:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed restoring the redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaotic Neutral. Percy Snoodle 11:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How is an article on an alignment without notability outside a game any different then an article on a creature or place that has no notability outside the game (there are plenty of other pages devoted to individual D&D creatures and places)?

Ethics

In my mind, this article should be closely linked to ethics since that is what alignment is supposed to be about. Therefore, I'd suggest the following:

• good = altruistic
• neutral = utilitaristic
• evil = egoistic

and

• lawful = deontological ethics (meaning that all deeds should be measured according to the intention)
• neutral = no real philosophical basis
• chaotic = teleological ethics (meaning that all deeds should be measured according to the result)

Ok, perhaps this is more in lines of "how the alignments should have been described"...

I have to disagree. Trying to put the DnD alignment system in with other ethics systems is a bit too "original research" for me. While in a conversation I might not disagree with your conclusions, they are inherently your interpretation, & thus not appropriate. --mordicai. 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, too. That would definitely be original research, and is very open to interpretation. I certainly wouldn't interpret the alignment system as being anything like that. If anything, I'd class neutrality as being egoistic, as neutral characters (like commoners) are primarily concerned with themselves and their family over larger commitments like ideology. That's original research and POV, though. Reveilled 14:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

keep thinking, but this is going nowhere. neutral are surely not utilitarian. utalists would be moderate good. and you got the wrong idea 'bout lawful vs chaotic. lawful v chaotic is probably more in the line of collectivism vs individualism but then talking ethics and traditions and authority and such instead of personal interests. --Lygophile 16:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Chaotic and lawful ethics can both be either deontological or teleological.24.47.151.201 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

True and indvidualism vs collectivism for chaos vs law makes sense. Hell, I consider myself an indvidualist and I got chaotic neutral on the online alignment test (look up alignment d & d on google, you'll see what I mean). But what would neutral be, all I can think of is pure. for example, Jesus Christ I would consider Neutral Good since he is in the hearts of all men and women, and I believe Jesus is apart of the Holy Trinity and son of go making him pure good. That also makes since for animals which would be pure neutral. P.S. I know this is going nowhere, but as for good and evil ethics, it's more of:

• Good=altruism
• Evil=arrogant (not technically the word, but only prefers to fulfill desires and can could care less for other people)
• Neutral= egoistic

--Wikistonecolddragon (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd more likely judge "good" to be someone whose desire is to help people, "evil" someone whose desire is to harm people and "neutral" someone in-between. These matters are not black and white nor does a unified good-evil scale exist. There is altruism, egotism, sadism etc. and trying to put this all together and guess what did the Wizards of the Coast mean when they wrote "good" and "evil" would be fully and thoroughly original research, as has already been pointed out by other users above. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I got two things to say:

• hey dude, we know original research is forbidden, this is a TALK PAGE, and is where we can express our opinions without worrying of deleting
• Wizards f*ed up by saying sadism being evil it's more like egocentric (as in you could care less for other people, you only care about completing your goal and will destroy anybody who gets in your way). There is more ways to be evil than unreasonable hurting. I would also like to add that you can still be netural or good and still be sadistic. Sadistic doesn't mean you're cruel, you jst enjoy to see people in pain whether it's for fun (this is the one you're referring to; that's worth evil), but however there is people who enjoy people in pain for sexual pleasure (if you're saying ewww! That's the same thing I said when I read the definition) and that's the reason I don't completely consider sadistic people completely evil because you can't help you're sexual feelings and that is the proper definition for sadistic overruling what you said--Wikistonecolddragon (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a talk page. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says talk pages are for discussions of article improvements. A talk page is not a forum, not a soapbox to express opinions about the article's subject. If you can suggest ways to improve this article, go for it, but this discussion is veering off topic. =Axlq 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright I saw that, thanks for the info. I guess we'll have to see what wizards say for better explaination on ethics and morals for law vs chaos and evil vs good --Wikistonecolddragon (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually WoTC does have a lot to say about it. Book of Exalted Deeds contains a chapter devoted to the nature of good, with descriptions of aspects of good (such as charity, personal sacrifice, mercy, forgiveness). The Book of Vile Darkness contains an entire chapter on the nature of evil, defining it, explaining gray areas, and describing evil acts (such as lying, cheating, betrayal, vengeance, theft). This article could be improved by referencing passages in both books. =Axlq 19:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgotten those two thinks for bringing them up. But what about law and chaos --Wikistonecolddragon (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Character list

I have to say, the character list section should probably be removed. No one ever agrees on this sort of thing, so I see it as a revert war waiting to happen. Plus, it's certainly not verifiable in any sense. -- Kesh

Maybe we should stick to Dungeons and Dragons (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc) characters for the list of examples as that can be verified by their D&D profiles. Like Raistlin of Dragonlance was Neutral when he was a Red Robe and then he became Chaotic Evil when he took on the Black Robes.Azn Clayjar 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That would at least be verifiable from sourcebooks so, yeah, that would work. -- Kesh 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say you should only list a character in the list if they are a notable D&D character with alignment listed, or if a authoritative person like Gary Gygax or the character's creator has made a verifiable comment on the matter. That probably leaves very few non-D&D characters. —Dgies^t c 00:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of that cold be handled with Dragonlance characters alone. Some notable Forgotten Realms characters would likely fill in the missing spots. The only problem will be "version wars" if the alignments vary from one edition to another. -- Kesh 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

i would agree that its probably a bad idea, but on the other hand i see the ability of merely thinking and discussing that out to sharpen our whole concept of what is lawfull and what is chaotic and thus aiding us in our design of the rest of the article--Lygophile 23:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be venturing into original research territory, so it's not going to work. I think we need to stick with verifiable alignment descriptors found for characters in books. -- Kesh 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your opinion on verifiable comments by the creators of non-D&D characters? —Dgies^t c 03:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If we can find a verifiable statement of the author saying the character fits into alignment X, that would work. Of course, we still don't want to get into too big of a list, and they would have to be the creator of the character for it to really qualify. I'm still favoring just citing sourcebooks for the most part, but could be persuaded about other characters. We need to avoid list-creep, though. -- Kesh 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

true. it gives actually the best view of what those allignments are, but you cant put it up as official information. yet i see lots of things that is original research....all the examples that are given with every allignment that didnt come directly off the d&d site is original research. its hard to be informative with such rules, needed as they are. probably we should put up that list as unofficial information atop the talk page or something like that, would probably be the best way to go, even if a bit unconventional. Lygophile has spoken 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks better without the list. List was fun but not really needed and I agree that most of the charactes listed are original research. Azn Clayjar 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The real people listed (such as Hitler, Stalin, and Bin Laden) should be deleted. This is getting into politics, and people will always disagree. Moreover, this is a simplified model from a game! I think it would only be safe to list fictional characters with "official" alignments (such as those in Dragonlance mentioned above), or examples out of the rule books (for example, I think some edition of the Player's Handbook gave Robin Hood as an example of chaotic good, but I'm not sure...) --Itub 11:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nathyrra

In Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark, one of the player's companions is a drow woman named Nathyrra, and though her alignment is Lawful Evil, she is portrayed as a good character. I think that her alignment may have been set to this for technical reasons (one of her classes is Assassin, which is an evil-only class), though I was wondering if it is possible that her previous life as a killer has turned her into a sociopath, and that she has no motivation to help others, but only serves the good-aligned rebel drow because they took her in (and her lawful nature therefore compels her to remain loyal to them).--Azer Red Si? 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your comments about Nathyrra really has nothing to do with this article. Also your theory about her alignment is just your opinion. But I do wonder why she was evil when she worshipped a good goddess. Azn Clayjar 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup'd

Cleaned up. No more creating Wikipedia articles by copying SRD pages, okay? ;) --Jonathan Drain 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[1]

vandalization

someone added ebaumsworld.com and YTMND.com to the list of examples of chaotic evil characters.

Revert and ignore. If they continue, pester an admin. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 15:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

examples

i se some fued/edit war has been going on lately about exampels of fictional character with certain alignments. rather than contribute to the edit war and due to the nature of the sections about it above i just wanted to say this....examples for certain alignments are a good idea. however in the interest of being undisputable i would sugest to using characters referenced in the D&D books themselves. this is how the creators of the various versions of the game percieve the alignments to be and correlation between any editions can then be left to the reader of the article and the editions to decide how each individual thinks an alignment should be. alignment is a big taboo topic for many reasons, and wikipedia is not immune to the war that has raged over these decades. so lets try to stick with examples from the book and prevent reader or editor disputes on the subject or just leave off the examples all together. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed Al Swearengen from the Deadwood TV show as example for Chaotic Neutral, as he for examples orders an innocent child to be murdered in s01e02. Just one example of many possibles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.137.86 (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Chaotic Evil Characters

Maybe I shouldn`t create a whole new section for this but I think saying that Riddick is chaotic evil is OR and also wrong, while is true that in Pitch black he was evil, he was never chaotic and in the second and third parts of the trilogy he is not evil i think that he is Chaotic neutral or at least neutral evil, he don`t kill people just like that, he care about his few friends, he feel sorrow, maybe love. He is a criminal, a murderer but he has never killed someone just fot the fun of it, he always has a reason, i know the narrator itself sys "evil fight another kind of evil" but even if he is evil he is neutral. Zidane tribal (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think that Carl Denham is a poor example of a chaotic evil character. IMO, a chaotic evil character should be the worst of the worst, with no regard either for sentient life or any established institutions. The sympathy both Carl (from the 2005 movie) and Riddick occasionally demonstrate is evidence enough they value at least some aspects of sentience, thus they should both be Chaotic Neutral. Furthermore, these characters more closely resemble anti-heros, where a chaotic evil character would almost certainly be a villain. I'm going to add the Joker as a more appropriate example, and let somebody else remove the other characters if they see fit. Trebnoj (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Chaotic Evil characters are the "worst of the worst," but the Joker is a perfect example of Chaotic Evil. Totally insane and a lust for wanton destruction and death. That's Chaotic Evil. I also don't believe that Riddick is Chaotic Evil. In fact, in the Chronicles of Riddick I would call him Chaotic Good. And in Pitch Black I don't think he's that evil. It's been a while since I've sen the movie, though. He just looks out for himself. I mean, he does help the humans get away, and even saves some of them at times. He is not Chaotic Evil. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

People, opinions do not matter at all. The only thing that matters is the official stance Wizards of the Coast has taken, and deleting examples with cited sources, or worse, replacing them with an uncited example while still retaining that little reference to Complete Scoundrel ([ref name="CompleteScoundrel" /], with the [] replaced by <>), is vandalism, pure and simple. Believe it or not, you are also no pioneers. In the last month I've had at least three different people put the Joker in there and on all three occasions I reverted the changes. No matter how much you want the Joker to be in there, it's not going to happen, and insistently putting him in there will result in an admin being contacted and you possibly being blocked. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but first of all, it doesn`t matter how much absurd, persistent or even nonsensical a edit is if the author doesn`t have the intention of damaging the article, is not vandalism. Second of all i don`t think Wizards of the Coast have a alignment specified for every fictional character there is, therefore, OPINIONS DO MATTER, while there is not official statement or reference, consensus is all that matter so, unless you can provide a statment from WotC of who is and who is not a Chaotic evil character, i will remove Riddick and encourage to add the Joker Zidane tribal (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The example has been both provided and sourced. What is written in Complete Scoundrel is an official statement. Also, opinions DO NOT and HAVE NEVER mattered. All that matters is evidence, and if evidence can't be provided, the statement, or lack thereof, has no place. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Vestigial that is complete and utter crap. Its NOT OPINION ITS FACT. Complete scoundrel is completely wrong and Wikipedia repeating information that is completely wrong only reinforces that negative opinion people have of wikipedia as a source of information. Jarlaclecq —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

Jarlaxlecq, stop crying. Complete Scoundrel is an official source. What you posted is not. If you continue to vandalize the article by removing sourced statements and adding what basically amounts to your own opinion, then say goodbye to your user name. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add to that, that consensus doesn't matter either without verifiable and reliable sources. All statements in an article should be verifiable by a reader unfamiliar with the subject. A "consensus" about the Joker doesn't qualify, because there are no verifiable and reliable references to confirm that consensus, to someone unfamiliar with the Joker or alignments.

Consensus matters only when deciding what sources to reference, and what facts to include from those sources. So we can argue, for example, about whether Complete Scoundrel mentioning the alignment of Sawyer from Lost means we should also include it in this article. That's where consensus comes in. =Axlq 05:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of examples of the Joker, paticularly the version in The Dark Knight, that state that he is the PERSONFICATION of a Chaotic Evil character. Also the idea that Riddick is Chaotic Evil baffles the mind. I cant believe that 1 book flying in the face of so many other sources is taken as irrefutable. Jarlaxlecq —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

Please include a citation when adding specific examples. Also, your removal of already cited examples, calling the citation wrong and incorrect, is considered to be disruptive. If you can add reliable sources to cite new additions to the lists, I fully encourage you to do so. You can find out how to use footnotes at the citation guidelines if you need help with them, but please do not remove already existing citations when adding in new ones. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to find more examples from additional D&D books, rather than relying on fansites, which are not official D&D sources. BOZ (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing about being Chaotic Evil is not that you are the worst of the worst, but that you act Chaotically, and are Evil, and those are the two traits that can be most consistently applied to you. Jason Voorhees is Chaotic Evil (the strongest survive, and he kills anybody who steps on his land) but is a character we are supposed to sympathise with. Nonetheless, examples of characters being an example of a specific alignment is something that should be taken from an official source - whether from D&D books, or the creator's word on it. Otherwise we'll get into terrible arguments about it. Harley Quinn hyenaholic (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sawyer from Lost?

I think this is an instance of the authors of our source being poorly informed. While his initial impression may have indicated otherwise, the character of Sawyer developed in aired episodes to date is clearly not evil and most likely chaotic. Rather than imposing my own positive judgment, I'll assume that my negative judgment that Sawyer probably isn't definitely Neutral Evil is held fairly unanimously between people who simultaneously know D&D and Lost, and just remove him from the page altogether. Tsunomaru (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. The source Complete Scoundrel isn't infallible, after all. We don't have to name all the examples in that source. =Axlq (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sawyer is Neutral Evil, and here's why: He has no urge to rebel against anything, and is purely out for himself (thus neutral). He stabs people in the back without hesitating, except if he likes them. Remember that "neutral people are committed by personal relationships," and thus his unwillingness to hurt those he cares about fails to amount to altruism and thus fails to counter all the other things he does (hoarding, stealing and betraying to name only a few). He is malevolent, plain and simple. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2008

That's where I have to disagree. Sawyer has a criminal past, meaning he has little respect for codified laws. When the survivors began settling in their little society, he made deliberate efforts to distance himself from the others and live "outside society". Even in his life previous to the Island, he was nomadic -- not tied down to anything. If anything, that's at least slightly more chaotic than the average person, and the average person is True Neutral. As a con artist, he only ever took money; large sums of money, yes, but mostly from fairly wealthy couples. Note that he elected to abort a con when he found out that the couple had a child. He has allowed himself to suffer purely for the sake of helping Kate, and at least late in the third season he's come to start acting genuinely helpful, even if he still gives people a hard time about it. The only men he ever killed were a man he thought had caused his parents to die and the man who actually did (and an Other, but that was war). He shows genuine empathy, even if it's deeply buried. Tsunomaru (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See, here's the thing: There's having little respect for laws (as in breaking them when it suits you) and being an active rebel (as in breaking them on principle; deliberate acts of civil disobedience). You are excluding the middle ground here on the law-chaos axis. On the issue of good vs. evil, he hurts people without good reason. It doesn't matter if he only screws wealthy people. Those people earned that money and he's hurting them to benefit himself. Financial hurt still counts as hurt. And deciding to not screw over a couple because they had a child means almost nothing because children have a way of messing with your head. It's a biological imperative to protect them that makes people think twice before hurting them.

Also, Wizards of the Coast has officially recognized him as neutral evil. I can understand the logic behind it and academic principle prohibits the exclusion of an example based on nothing but conjencture or opinion. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008

Okay, granted that his history as a con artist indicates a greater amount of evil than normal. It also goes to the discussion that he breaks laws and acts deceptively more frequently than an average person. In my experience, it's generally accepted that there is a grey area, that some TN people are more evil than others and some NE people are less evil than others. You speak of deliberate, ideological chaos; why doesn't deliberate, ideological evil enter into the discussion? No, Sawyer doesn't break laws on the principle of Chaos; nor does he steal from people on the principle of Evil: he does these things to further his own personal goals, and there are conditions under which he will suffer -- either physically or by aborting a con -- due to empathy for others. This isn't intentional evil. To be honest, I think it's reasonable that realistic characters don't deliberately espouse ideologies of Evil, but rather some psychosis drives them to believe that evil actions are justifiable. Yes, Sawyer is mean. Yes, he steals from nice people. Given the opportunity, would he become a lich? Doubtful.

My point is that it's a misrepresentation of the character and the alignment to use Sawyer as an exemplar for NE; in the traditional D&D ethos, evil characters are generally expected to be villains, or at least villainous. In the context of his canon, Sawyer is far from being the most evil character. Even more importantly, the entire series features a certain pattern of character redemption, and, of course, the canon isn't complete. A single judgment on any character's alignment before his or her story is complete is quite likely to be inaccurate. We only have limited insight into the actual motivations of the character, and we don't know the sum of his actions until they've all transpired.

To recap: Sawyer is most likely somewhere between "Neutral Evil with Neutral tendencies" and "Chaotic Neutral with Neutral tendencies". He's not the type to worship dark gods and perform human sacrifices. He doesn't kill for sadistic pleasure. And, as a protagonist on a show with a recurring good/evil motif, he's more likely to turn decisively to the good side than to the evil side -- but even then, we don't know, because the story is incomplete. WotC has only "officially" recognized his alignment insofar as that their company published the book that did so. Its authors represent the original vision of Gary Gygax, or even Cook, Williams, and Tweet, the authors of the 3rd edition, only because their company had purchased the right to it. That doesn't make them the final authority over the alignment system; there's precedent for this in the various levels of canon in Star Wars. Now, I'm not proposing that we place Sawyer under a different alignment. I'm proposing that it's irresponsible and misrepresentative to label him as something that, if not now, he probably won't be by the end of the series, and that he doesn't represent very well in D&D context anyway. Tsunomaru (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be ideologically evil to count as evil. And willingness to become a lich utterly fails to factor into the deal. Further, just because he isn't into human sacrifice or the worship of dark gods, does not make him not evil (if that were true, not one person in this world would be evil). The fact is that he is a very good example of a neutral evil criminal type.

And for the record, WotC is the ultimate authority on alignment at this point. They own it (as well as the system in which it's included). Vestigial Thumb (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008

WOTC is also prone to error, which is why they publish lengthy errata lists for their books. We're talking about a character from an obscure TV show that nobody will remember 2 decades from now, unlike other examples cited that have passed the test of time ("obscure" in the sense of "too U.S.-centric"). That character is a point of contention. WOTC lists other, more acceptable examples we can use, so I have no problem excluding Sawyer. There is no requirement for us to provide an exhaustive list of everything a WOTC book says. =Axlq (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the issue. WotC defined the neutral evil alignment, and to show how that definition can be interpreted, they included Sawyer. Thus Sawyer effectively becomes an amendment to or clarification on the definition of what neutral evil means or can imply. Thus he should be included. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2008

Vestigial Thumb: "See, here's the thing: There's having little respect for laws (as in breaking them when it suits you) and being an active rebel (as in breaking them on principle; deliberate acts of civil disobedience). You are excluding the middle ground here on the law-chaos axis."

Vestigial Thumb: "You don't have to be ideologically evil to count as evil."

Hmmm.... My point: while Sawyer occasionally ventures into the territories of both Chaos and Evil, he is committed to neither for its own sake.

While various D&D sources may have crystallized definitions of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil are preexisting concepts in human culture and philosophy; should we suppress our better judgment of the notion of these concepts just because two authors sanctioned by WotC disagree? If there's going to be an example of NE, it seems logical that it should be somebody on the middle ground of the alignment's range, not somebody who's barely over the cusp. I don't think you can deny that there are serial killers and violent criminals in real life who are far more evil than the character of Sawyer. Even more significant are the typical NE villains a character would be met with in D&D, the only context where alignment actually matters. That means liches, practitioners of human sacrifice, worshipers of dark gods, mass murderers, grave desecrators, and individuals of similar malevolence. To qualify as an exemplar of NE, a character should be on par with these people in magnitude of Evil. For people who are already familiar with the alignment system but not Lost, using Sawyer as the example would give them the false impression that he's far worse than he actually is; conversely, for people familiar with Lost but not the D&D alignment system, it would give them unrealistically tame expectations for how dark the game can get. Tsunomaru (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Evil people are not as bad as people like to think. At least not in D&D. As long as you stay on their good side, they will look out for you just like everybody else would. What you are describing (commitment to evil for its own sake) is fiendish evil. It's how the fiends behave. Mortals generally have neither the willingness or the stomach for the evil fiends are capable of, thus fiends do not make a good standard for it, but rather an example of how extreme it can get.

It's also inconsequential that serial killers are worse than he is. It does not make Sawyer 'not evil'. The way he behaves (and has behaved) fits the definition of neutral evil, thus that is what he is. WotC has decided that he is neutral evil and has decent reasoning behind it, so I insist that he be kept as an example. That's what good academia demands, it's what Wikipedia demands of its users and its just plain good manners to supply all relevant information when it exists. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2008

(outdent) You insist? Well, as a counterpoint, I insist Sawyer be excluded for the simple reason that he isn't a notable enough fictional character to deserve a mention. When it's clear, years from now, whether the Lost TV show stood up to the test of time like Batman, James Bond, Odysseus, and other examples have done, we can re-consider. I personally think Sawyer is too obscure. Heck, as an American, I've never even heard of this Sawyer fellow until I saw it in this article (can't watch everything, after all, and Lost is way down on my list of priorities), yet I'm familiar with all the other examples. I don't think the argument "WOTC mentions Sawyer, so should we" holds water. =Axlq (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He is actually a fairly notable character outside of the U.S. The show has a very large international fandom and a widespread effect on popular culture. Read the article about Lost to see what I mean. Just because you have barely heard of him doesn't mean that millions of other people haven't and it's presumptuous to think so in the first place.

So yes, I insist that he be kept as an example. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 2:30, 20 January 2008

Sawyer from Lost is a bad example of the Neutral Evil alignment. Character like Emperor Palpatin in Star Wars or Lucius Malefoy in Harry Potter are better example of what a Neutral Evil character could be. The point here is not to do an hypothetical debate about the alignment of the Sawyer from Lost but to give a good and mostly non-ambigous example of what is a Neutril Evil character. The case of sawyer is just to ambigous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.205.213 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 January 2008

I guess my gripe here is that the article asserts the opinion of the source as if it were fact, in violation of the WP:NPOV policy. I have re-cast the sentence to fix this. Nobody can argue that Complete Scoundrel says Sawyer is Neutral Evil. But if Wikipedia asserts it as fact, then everybody will argue about it. =Axlq (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good compromise right there. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2008

I have delete the example of Sawyer even if it's describe like a citation of the «Complete scoundrel handbook». An example is supposed to help clarify a definition, wich it's obviously not the case since there is a controversy with the example. In this case, the example add more confusion than clarification to the article. So, it's better to avoid this particular example instead of adding it. And the fact that the «Complete scoundrel» use Sawyer as an example of Neutral Evil character is not a good argument to use it as an example in a Wikipedia article since «The complete scoundrel» could be completely wrong in is analysis of the character. Only the author of the series «Lost» could be consider a reliable source to consider Sawyer like a Neutral Evil character. Briefly, it's better to avoid a controversial and poor example instead of using it and adding confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.205.213 (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In the end of season 4, Sawyer jumps from the helicopter to save his friends self sacrificing himself. This is not consistent with a evil behavior. In this website (http://lost.about.com/od/sawyer/a/Sawyer.htm) There are lots of arguments that shows Sawyer as being, at least sometimes, a good person. The producers are, very often, acused of switching Sawyer alignment (after season 1) because of massive public criticism. I am going to post here some references for this soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.133.232 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

'Outsiders'

The term 'outsider' is frequently mentioned in examples of Alignment, however there is no example of what, exactly, an 'Outsider' is. I've linked the first mention of 'outsider' to the description under Creature Type, but I still believe it could use a bit of clarification or a change to something similar to other parts of the article - for example, 'Slaadi represent pure Chaos.' The example under Lawful Good could be changed to sound similar to that - 'An example of Lawful Good are known as Archons'.

I'm not exactly sure on those examples in the first place, but I'm new around here and leaving them in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X9122017 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That comeplete scoundrel book is nuts

Indiana Jones, a man who steals religious atifacts from indiginous cultures, and Batman, a vigilante who denies criminals due process, are "lawful"? What version of "lawful" does that book use? Serendi^podous 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A version where your alignment doesn't change to Chaotic for entering a different town (i.e. the Core definitions). Alignment is an objective standard larger than small locales and cities. User:Vestigial Thumb 3:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the system is pretty open to interpretation, isn't it? --Kizor 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Batman doesn't deny criminals due process, he invariably turns them over to the legal system for processing, even when he disagrees with what the end results will be. He's a very good example of lawful, but not a perfect one, because he doesn't obey all laws - just the "important" ones. He doesn't turn himself in, for example, when the system wants to put him on trial. Superman is a purer example of lawful good. The quintessential boy scout. 97.114.118.181 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples

It would seem to me that some of the xamples provided for the different alignments are off. Most are right but I noticed a few flaws. Riddick from Pitch Black is considered Chaotic Evil? Lara Croft is True Neutral? Idk about that. Also, what alignment are the drow? I was under the impression they were Chaotic Neutral. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the Drow have always been chaotic evil subterranean elves. As for the character examples, they're official. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Drow are neutral evil. They're "usually neutral evil" in the 3.5 Monster Manual. They're NE in Drow of the Underdark. Lolth is chaotic evil, most clerics of Lolth are CE, but the average 'drow on the street' is NE. Also, Red X from Teen Titans? Chaotic Neutral? 'Cause I've SEEN his episodes, he seems more of a True Neutral to me (a 'look out for number one' ethos, and periodic bouts of honour).58.166.126.229 (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Count Dorku

Good catch. Red X is gone. No source mentions any alignment for Red X. Somebody added that as a personal opinion. That someone must also be illiterate, because if you try to edit any example, right above the paragraph is a comment in big capital letters saying "DO NOT ADD MORE EXAMPLES WITHOUT SOURCES". =Axlq 04:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Scout Code in Lawful Good example

Is this really appropriate under the "good" heading, esp. in light of the American Boy Scout's discrimination against homosexual people? 85.226.239.90 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article just says the code is LG (I checked and it says nothing about bigotry or discrimination); it said nothing about the organization, just the code. One could easily say the code is LG and the execution closer to LN.58.166.126.229 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Count Dorku

Exactly. It's the difference between theory and practice. The article says nothing about the alignment of the Boy Scouts. Their creed simply expresses a lawful good ideal, that's all. How they abide by that ideal in practice is another matter entirely, and not within the scope of this article's subject. =Axlq 04:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically enough, prejudice is, according to WoTC, a lawful trait. As in, one classic Greyhawk deity mentioned in Complete Divine, Wastri (LN) is described as "a minor god of bigotry and amphibians." 137.166.68.65 (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Count Dorku

Mistakes within the examples

Batman should probably be "chaotic good," since he knows that some laws must be broken in order to protect greater ones, which is a more chaotic good trait. Also, it says that Artemis Entreri is a prime example of Lawful Evil, but on his Wiki page, it says that he is neutral evil. Which is it? 68.55.33.112 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed Artemis Entreri, since he isn't listed in the Complete Scoundrel rulebook. Batman is listed as Lawful Good since it is written that way in the rulebook. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Artemis Entreri is a D&D character, and as such his alignment has been stated in multiple publications, though he isn't in Complete Scoundrel because the alignments it gives relate to non-D&D characters. --Muna (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it wrongly – the characters don't have to be listed in the Complete Scoundrel; other sources are more than welcome. If you find a source that states his alignment, you should add it. Beware, though, unsourced edits are removed on sight and this article has been vandalized far too many times to believe unsourced claims. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Boba Fett seems like a terrible example for a lawful evil character. Complete Scoundrel or not, Boba Fett works for the Empire when it suits him, and for the criminal enterprise of Jabba the Hutt at other times. If he switches allegiances as easily as that, how can he be counted as lawful evil? Compare with Darkseid. That's a character who is seeking to establish a personal code of law over the entire universe, through actions that are certainly evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.211.238.2 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. As long as it disagrees with official sources published by the owner and creator of 3.5 alignment, I have a hard time seeing why your opinion matters. Vestigial Thumb (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about this-- can we find a better source than this Complete Scoundrel? It seems to me (yes, merely my opinion) as though it's not a very good source, and the article might be better served by a source that isn't giving bad information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.97.166 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE

I have downloaded a scan of the Complete Scoundrel via torrent, removed non-existant examples and re-added missing ones. If anyone tries to add some new examples or remove some of the existing without forming a consensus on this talk page, I'll revert him on sight and I suggest the others monitoring this article to do the same. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple other editors here already do that, but we don't check in every day. Thanks. It's amazing to me how many people can't comprehend the simple commented directive in capital letters at the top of each section. =Axlq 04:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Chaotic Evil

I don't see too much examples of Chaotic Evil and I thought of Sephiroth, anyone thinks that sounds right --Wikistonecolddragon (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can only add characters confirmed by D&D staff to be Chaotic Evil, specifically in the book Complete Scoundrel. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know when I tried to add that and I saw that I'm not allow to make edits without sources and took that as you need permission which led to this. BTW what would you consider Altair (don't know how you type it so that woill lead you to the constellation) from Assassin's Creed, personally I say Neutral Good. Although he follows the creed, tradition and religion in a devout way he has the flexibility and adaptability of a Chaotic aligned guy. --Wikistonecolddragon (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your restraint. Without sources, whatever conjectures we make about particular individuals is nothing more than original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. That doesn't mean we have to use official D&D sources. If some other book explicitly says that so-and-so is chaotic and good, that would be OK. =Axlq 15:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We can add any example we want - AS LONG AS A SOURCE IS PROVIDED. Not just from The Complete Scoundrel either. Harley Quinn hyenaholic (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Any D&D book or magazine that provides examples should be useable. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WotC's take on Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaotic

Let's see what Player's Handbook version 3.5 says on good vs. evil:

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

Lawful vs. chaotic:

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closemindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

This should make it clear what each alignment means. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I sorta saw that in the article and knew that I meant those guides like Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds. I'm not asking for more, But thanks! --Wikistonecolddragon (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Initialism of alignments

It might help readers who are unfamiliar with Dungeons & Dragons' alignment system (who are the people who would be seeking out this article) to include a note that alignment names are often initialised, since such readers are unlikely to recognise what is meant by "Alignment: LN" in an infobox or similar without a bit of further research, so it can't hurt to make it clear in this article. :) --Muna (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found a minor reference, though it's not particularly easy to find in the article:

Nine alignment combinations were possible in all, referred to with the Law/Chaos component first and the Good/Evil component last: for example, Lawful Good or Neutral Evil (abbreviated to LG and NE, respectively).

A more prominent example could be helpful. :) --Muna (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Name capitalization

Shouldn't the alignment names be uncapitalized? WotC and TSR both spelled them with lowercase letters (for example, neutral good instead of Neutral Good). The only time I have seen the capitalized form in an official product is in the headers for the descriptions, and those are clearly just emphasis since the description itself uses the lowercase form. Since this format is used in all official products, it must be the correct way to put it. I say we fix this. 66.63.86.156 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

They should be lowercase; 'twas my mistake in the Orcus article. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Original Research/Synthesis

Stating that the boy scouts' oath is 'lawful good' is original research and ridiculous. There is nothing in the oath that explicitly connects it to an aspect of Dungeons and Dragons rules. I can't believe I'm having to explain this. bridies (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the 'unexplained' OR tag. The article is blatantly full of unverified claims and possible original research. Take this paragraph:

Under the AD&D rules, a player character's alignment was strongly [says who?] enforced. For example, under 2nd Edition AD&D rules, a character who performed too many actions outside of his alignment could be forced to change alignment, and alignment changes were penalized by requiring more experience to be gained to reach the next level. In third edition D&D this restriction is removed and players are technically allowed to change alignment freely. In the third edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game, alignment's most significant effect [says who?] with regard to game rules is restricting what character classes a person may take — for example, a lawful person cannot become a bard or a barbarian, a druid must be neutral in at least one aspect, and under the standard rules only lawful good characters can become a paladin. Certain weapons (such as Holy weapon) or spells (such as detect evil) affect creatures differently depending on alignment. A rule removed from recent editions of the game was alignment languages, wherein people of the same alignment could communicate through insinuations and intimations that only really make sense between those of like-minded affiliation with an aspect of a universal standard of ethic and morality. [says who?] Since a person could change alignment, this rule made little sense [says who? OR] and was eventually removed, despite rules implying that alignment change removed commonality and hence shifted mutual understanding. bridies (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

More:

The conflict of good versus evil is a common motif in Dungeons & Dragons and other fantasy fiction. Says who?

A lawful good nation would consist of a well-organized government that works for the benefit of its citizens. Where did this come from?

I got bored here, but you get the idea. This is in addition to a plethora of other claims which should have a source. bridies (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all your points; I think that inline tags might be better tan the cleanup banner, but most of these do need citations or rewriting. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"The conflict of good versus evil is a common motif in Dungeons & Dragons and other fantasy fiction. Says who?" It's a poorly worded sentence. That particular motif is nigh-ubiquitous in all fiction, fantasy or otherwise. There is no need to cite a source for a well known fact. It's like calling for citation of proof that the sky exists when all you need to do is look up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vestigial Thumb (talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, not really. 'The sky exists' is an obvious physical fact whereas The conflict of good versus evil is a common motif in Dungeons & Dragons and other fantasy fiction is a critical assertion, no matter how basic you consider it to be (in which case it shouldn't be hard to find a citation, no?). As it happens I'd disagree 'good vs evil' is even common outside Tolkein rip-off fantasy, let alone ubiquitous. bridies (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That the article may need citations is a given. The more the better. Please leave the pseudo-political-religious scout organization out of the article or include the so called oath also in the Lawful Evil section. --LexCorp (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Scout Oath

Seriously political sensitive material here many people consider the scout organization as bad for society. Not good at all. Lets leave politics out of the article. Try finding a better example.--LexCorp (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-sequitur arguments are not valid reasons to delete content. Many people consider D&D as bad for society too. So what? Remember Wikipedia is not censored.

There are no politics involved in the context of this article. The Scout Oath is presented in a non-controversial way, focusing on what it says, regardless of the political positions of the organization. It happens to be an excellent and concise real-world expression of lawful good, saying basically "I will obey the law and I will do good things." One could not ask for a better example.

I note also that this Scout Oath has been in the article for a long, long time without generating controversy. It is adequately sourced and clearly fits in the article. Therefore, I am once again restoring it, because I have not seen any valid basis for removing it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That we are discussing it shows that it is controversial. That it is not the first time is has been suggested shows that it is controversial. It is a well known real life controversy with politically and religious implications. You cannot, as you pretend to do, take the content of the oath alone and remove it from its real world connotations (both historically and morally). Everyone knows whose gods it refers to. Most people have a view formed on the scouts. Many people find the duties required or owned to that god revolting. In summary you are sacrificing the articles non-contentious apolitical status for lack of a better real life example of LG. My view is that the scout example does not improve the article but rather soils it. In introduces a controversy, quite removed from the article subject, right into it. What you have to ask yourself is, if it really worth that much?. Wikipedia is about quality edits not longevity or enduring edits. I am not going to revert you but I do wish for other editor to think hard if that edit is really necessary and if it really improves the quality of the article. --LexCorp (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That we are discussing it only shows that you imagine the oath is controversial, but no controversy exists in the context of a D&D alignment. The political controversy surrounding the Boy Scouts organization is completely irrelevant, and out of context. The fact that the organization has an oath that expresses a lawful good ideal is the only relevant issue.

Being offended is a personal choice. The oath would still be a valid example as a stand-alone statement, without even mentioning the Boy Scouts. You are suggesting that the mere association of a statement with an controversial organization is a reason to delete an excellent real-world example of a LG expression. I don't see the logic in that.

Yes, Wikipedia is about quality. Wikipedia achieves quality by being encyclopedic, using verifiable sources. That is exactly what including the Scout Oath accomplishes. It unquestionably improves the quality of the article by providing an encyclopedic, real-world, well-known, and verifiable example.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but your argument doesn't have the support of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will stress again: Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of anyone. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removing content, and that is basically what the argument above boils down to. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not like to discuss with WP policies. It is tedious. But then here it is. Supported specifically in WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Your statements that the oath is an example of lawful Good is not substantiated by the reference. It is something you take for granted. So either you find a citation that substantiates your views or please remove your edit so as to purge the article of a non Neutral Point of View WP:NPV.--LexCorp (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if this would come up.

First: About this being "my" edit, it existed for over a year before I came along. All I did was restore it after I noticed it got deleted.

Second: We don't substantiate things that are self evident. You won't find any source that explicitly says 789×456=359784, for example. Such a statement would not need a reference because it's an objective fact. Similarly, the concepts of "lawful" and "good" are well-understood. The Scout Oath uses phrases that anyone would recognize as exemplifying both "lawful" ("obey the Scout Law") and "good" ("help other people at all times" and "keep myself morally straight"). Those are objective facts.

Finally: It is remarkable that you would bring up WP:NPOV and accuse me of taking anything for granted. There is no "view" here to substantiate. Any objective person who parses the oath would conclude that it contains statements that express both lawful and good intent.

Perhaps the only fault I can see is that the article appears to take a position that must be verified by looking at the footnote. It might be better if the article stated something similar to what I just wrote: That the Scout Oath contains phrases about obeying the law and being morally straight. I think you can agree that those are objective facts. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the inclusion of the Oath is Original Research without an actual citation, rather than just citing the contents. That it constitutes Lawful Good is not substantiated by anything said other than personal point of view and opinion; it could as well be Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good. Unless there is a citation linking the Oath specifically to the Lawful Good alignment in D&D, I think it should be removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that I'm not saying that the Oath doesn't fit the description given for Lawful Good; just that there has been no relation made between it and the D&D alignment. Currently, the citation is simply the contents of the Oath, rather than some analysis or statement relating the two. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Point one. When you make a revert then the edit is as good as yours and rightly so.

Point two. Again you take facts for granted. I do not dispute the oath as lawful. But pledging to the duty of a god with questionable moralities could be constructed to be evil. The Scout Oath uses phrases that anyone would recognize as internally non consistent and thus hypocrisy and ultimately evil. Specifically "I will do my best to do my duty to God" and "obey the Scout Law" against "help other people at all times" and "keep myself morally straight". Again I bring up WP:NPOV and specially WP:SUBSTANTIATE because I dispute your self evident argument.

Again I dispute that point. The oath contains statements that express lawful intent.But the good intent is superseded by "I will do my best to do my duty to God" and "obey the Scout Law" with can be constructed (as is the case by me) to be evil.

Addendum. Points you should consider,

• This is not a personal attack on you or your edits
• WP:NPOV is a fundamental Wikipedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Your opinion that your edit is a good example of LG is not shared by me (read "many editors" in "your", read "many editors" in "me"). That is why we have WP:NPOV and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Every argument you make in your favor I could use to move the edit to the LE section.
• Your views that your edit is non controversial is not factual. No matter the relation to the article. Scouts as good is controversial. Scout oath as a example of a good action is controversial. No real policy against that just common sense but then it is either oath as both LG and LE (which you will agree is detrimental to the article) or invoking the authority of WP:SUBSTANTIATE
• If we take this to WP:Consensus you may stand in the majority. As I am fully aware that my views are minority.
• If we take this to arbitration then chances are that under WP:SUBSTANTIATE and WP:NPOV the arbitration will go my way.
• Last but not least, scouts have nothing to do with D&D. They are not archetypal. I am sure better examples could be found.--LexCorp (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have requested additional input on this topic at the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I barely skim read this, but the whole boy-scout-oath-is-lawful-good is original research slash unverifiable bullshit. See the above section. bridies (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, for your convenience: There is nothing in the oath that explicitly connects it to an aspect of Dungeons and Dragons rules. (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being slightly uncivil there (alcohol...). To clarify, in order to make the statement that the scouts oath is 'lawful good' as in dungeons and dragons rules, you must have a source which explicitly says so. bridies (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Scout oath section break 1

I'm the editor who originally put that in, over a year ago.

Bridies, you have not read the discussion above, where the point was made that self-evident objective facts don't need sources. We don't source 2+2=4. At the same time, we don't need a source saying that "I will obey the law" expresses a lawful ideal, and "I will do good things" expresses a good ideal. Those are objective facts. You're taking the intent of WP:V to ridiculous extremes.

Lexcorp, you are conflating your admitted biased view toward the Boy Scouts with the result of objectively parsing a simple sentence that happens to originate from that organization. Please focus on the statement itself, and not on the organization whose political/social leanings are irrelevant to this discussion. I agree that the controversy around the organization is real, but to project that same controversy onto the scout oath, as you are doing, is groundless.

I have no problem with taking this to arbitration. I am sure the arbitrators will be capable of separating themselves emotionally from their personal views about the Boy Scouts, and focus on the content of the oath itself.

Finally, about the complaints that "scouts have nothing to do with D&D" or "there is nothing about the oath that connects it to D&D rules". So what? No real-world example will have anything to do with D&D. It's unreasonable to expect a real-world example to be related.

If you are so certain a better example can be found, then feel free to find one. There are other examples (the US soldier's creed, maybe) but they are nowhere near as clear and concise as the scout oath. I would like to see real-world examples for every alignment in the article. =Axlq 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to expect a real-world example to be related. Exactly, this is an article about dungeons and dragons lore and rules. Boy Scouts have nothing to do with dungeons and dragons. Furthermore, you are simply not talking about self-evident objective facts. You are drawing subjective conclusions based on a primary source, which is indisputably original research WP:OR. I explained all this above. bridies (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll note here that the article is chock-full of other examples, so the argument about examples needing to be related has no basis.

I see no subjective conclusions being drawn here.

"I will obey the law." Can anyone objectively deny that this is an expression of lawfulness? If so, explain how.

"I will be morally straight." Can anyone objectively deny that this is an expression of goodness? If so, explain how.

Objective facts do not need sourcing, and do not equate to original research.

I already stated above that one way to improve the passage is to focus on specific phrases in this real-world example that express the concepts of lawful and good. I can give a shot at editing it in such a way that addresses objections, unless the original contributor wants to do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I will say again that this is not a dictionary entry on the adjectives 'lawful' and 'good'. It it an article about a particular aspect of dungeons and dragons rules/lore. It may be reasonable to draw parallels between this in-universe concept and real-world examples, however for a Wiki editor to do so based on a primary source is original research, which Wikipedia does not publish. The other examples have citations to reliable, independent sources (and any that don't, go ahead and delete them). bridies (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is saying this is a dictionary entry. The article simply offers a real-world example of an expression of lawful good. No claims are being made about the primary source, only about objectively parsing a simple sentence. =Axlq 17:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is both contradictory and simply incorrect, for the various reasons I've had to explain several times already. This is going to need a dispute resolution clearly. bridies (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw did you alert an admin? It would be nice to have a third opinion from someone possibly sane. bridies (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. Yes, I alerted an admin, on WP:3RR. And as my final revert, I will attempt to rephrase the text to be more acceptable rather than blindly reverting. =Axlq 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No amount of rephrasing will help your case. What you need is a reliable, independent source to make verifiable your otherwise original research. bridies (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

See what you think of my revision, and tell me what specifically is wrong with it. I tried to ensure that it just states facts. =Axlq 18:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Although I still don't personally think that it should be included, I think that this edit reasonably rewrites it so that it is not as much of a statement. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you mean? bridies (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is now written in a way that sounds less like a stated fact. It really should be removed if there isn't a reliable reference, but it's a little better now. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically what is wrong with it, is the same thing that was wrong with before. It is based on your observations and not those of a reliable secondary source.bridies (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas Even if we entertain the notion that your claim is a "fact" and not an argument, opinion or speculation, policy still agrees that I may demand reliably published proof (and of course I insist it is an opinion drawing subjective parallels, not a fact). bridies (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put in a request at WP:ORN. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a board for that? oh well. bridies (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Coming in from the NOR noticeboard as an uninvolved contributor, I don't have much issue with the boyscout comment other than stylistically: while the other 8 alignments all give examples of characters that display the alignment's qualities, the Lawful Good alignment is the only one to give an example of an organisation. This makes it seem like an unintended advertisement for the boy scouts. If other alignments had real-world organisations/rulebooks/oaths it would make this example stand out less. Just my opinion... Quietmarc (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your input, I made an edit[2] that balances the issue perfectly.--LexCorp (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)adding link--LexCorp (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see where that edit was made...but thinking about this, it occured to me, why not use D&D examples instead? Surely in the thousands of sourcebooks there are a few organisations that could be used to demonstrate the differences between LG, CN, LE, etc.Quietmarc (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds of organizations, but any reference to them would be in-universe. In trying to keep this article more out-of-universe, we're trying to use sourced, real-world examples wherever possible. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. Then throw in other real-world examples. Perhaps Greenpeace as chaotic good? The mafia as lawful evil? ...Actually, the more I think about it, using real world orgs seems like a quagmire. Anyone who's gay and has been shunned by the boyscouts may have issues with seeing them listed as "good."Quietmarc (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what I meant... real-world examples should be used whenever possible, as long as they have already been correlated in reliable sources. Outsourced references, like the current one, are what's problematic. If an already-established source said that the Oath was Lawful Good, then it could be added with a valid reference and a qualifier, like "XYZ has related the boy scout's oath the alignment..." -Drilnoth (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with both Quietmarc and Drilnoth. In that real world examples can be controversial and because they are, need a supporting rigorous and relevant reference or citation--LexCorp (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aswers to Axlq. I do not dispute that saying that "I will obey the law" expresses a lawful ideal, and "I will do good things" expresses a good ideal. The fact of the matter is that the oath says "I will obey the scout law" which undauntedly expresses a lawful ideal but also can be constructed to express a evil intent. Also see my above argument of the oath as internally inconsistent which has not been answer. By deconstructing the oath into separate sentences you undauntedly change its intent. Again you invoke self evidence, I dispute that and policies like WP:SUBSTANTIATE are there to help resolve this kind of disputes. That I may be bias on the issue at hand does not belittle my argument. If this comes to a vote I will opt to abstain due to my bias. That you have not expressed a bias does no necessarily means you are not but until proven different I will assume that you are not bias. Still my arguments continue to be valid and I don't see anything in your answer to address them. On It's unreasonable to expect a real-world example to be related I complete disagree. There are multiple opinion outlets within the RPG industry and D&D game to try to find a citation of a D&D game designer giving real live examples. That we have not found one or perhaps that there is not such a citation does not mean that any editor can then edit self-opinionated examples (See my edit[3] of LE as an example to drive the point) that are not substantiated. It is true that simple self evident statements do not require citations but it is equally true and Wikipedia policy that contentious statements do in fact require supporting citations. Lastly again I express my opinion that this edit is detrimental to the article and that its removal will improve it. --LexCorp (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put in a request at WP:POVN.--LexCorp (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC maybe? It would be better than going back and forth about the point. BOZ (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a request for comments at WP:POVN and Drilnoth have one at WP:ORN. Lets those ride for a while. I also feel that both editors resisting the change have not really argumented their position to the full and I certanly don't feel that they have tried to counter my arguments. My opinion is to discuss it here more before we go to RFC. Also I would like to suggest to all editors to not enter in a edit war on the page. No body is gonna die for the edit standing a few more days. Lets try to reach a consensus here first.--LexCorp (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aargh. Two edit conflicts.

I think we're converging on something. The recent revision seems more acceptable to others.

To LexCorp: "I will obey the scout law" can be construed to express a evil intent? I can understand that some people might think that. But consider: "I will obey US law" or "I will obey German law" or "I will obey military regulations" or "I will obey my boss" can be construed similarly. I think it does belittle your arguments to base them on your personal bias, equating the single adjective "scout" to "evil". The organization itself claims (through their oath) to be lawful good, in spite of what they actually practice. In any case, the organization's controversies aren't relevant to this article (and I don't have any strong views about the Scouts; I have no association with them other than having acquaintances who were scouts). It's your choice to take offense or misconstrue a word. People can construe the statement any way they want. It doesn't change the fact that it's an expression of lawfulness, regardless of the adjective put in front of the word "law".

The other examples given in this article (from Complete Scoundrel) are also unrelated to D&D. I would like to include more real-world examples in this article. As stated a while back in this discussion, the job of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic. Real-world examples that illustrate concepts serve that purpose. I disagree that the article is improved by removing it.

As the revised edit stands now, it simply states an objective fact, and I am gratified that other editors now have less problem with it than my original version I put there in 2007. As mentioned earlier, finding a citation would be as difficult as sourcing a self-evident math expression, although I note that Googling for "boy scouts" and "lawful good" turn up many hits unrelated to Wikipedia, indicating that there's a widely held view equating the two. =Axlq 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely because most statements dealing with the evil-good axis for real life can and are controversial they need to be substantiated. So you really confirm my point.

That you think my arguments are belittle by my bias does not reflect on their adequacy or inadequacy, but rather in your inability to abstract them from my persona. Any non bias editor could make them and still ring true.

The organization itself claims (through their oath) to be lawful good You need to substantiate this statement. I equally say that The organization itself claims (through their oath) to be lawful evil but do not include it in the article because I am unable to substantiate it. I follow WP you disregard them because you feel that my minority objection does not merit consideration. I disagree and invoke the tools provided to me by the Wikipedia community in WP:SUBSTANTIATE. If you feel you don't need to substantiate I may feel that my edit on the LE section is justified and a edit war will ensue.

Complete Scoundrel is a supplement of D&D and thus authority in the subject matter. Me or you agreeing with its contents is irrelevant. If you find a citation about the scout oath with a similar authority I will immediately drop the issue and the edit will go unchallenged from me.

I still do not agree with the revised edit nor will I do with any mention of the scouts until properly cited and referred.--LexCorp (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The article does not claim that The organization itself claims (through their oath) to be lawful good. My original edit in the article never claimed that either. I claimed that on this talk page. Again, self-evident things require no substantiation.

"I will obey Scout Law". You already agreed this is a self-evident expression of lawfulness.

"I will help people". That is self-evident as an expression of goodness.

"I will be morally straight." Ditto.

The article simply says that the scout oath contains statements consistent with lawful good. I am surprised that you persist in denying those objective self-evident facts. =Axlq 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"I will obey Scout Law" Lawful yes but also evil. Thus my argument on editing[4] also the LE section or been able to substantiate which by the way you seem to be avoiding.

Again you avoid my arguments on taking the whole oath as hypocrisy and thus evil and thus including it on the LE section as per your self evident argument. I do not do so because I cannot substantiate it. Yet you do include your biases edit without citation. Hardly Neutral Point of View, Is it?

I am also surprised that you 1. disregard Wikipedia policy, 2. do not acknowledge that the oaths is self evidently evil. 3. That in front of opposition from different editors, all with valid and reasoned arguments you insist in defending a edit that does not improve the article quality.--LexCorp (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment This is silly. If there is controversy over the Scouts (and I don't see why there should be) b/c they are unsourced, just find a sourced example. Trillions of electrons have been spilt on D&D alignment over the years -- it shouldn't be too hard to find an uncontroversial example commonly familiar in the popular culture. Like, say, Superman, or Hot Fuzz. Ray (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those would be acceptable, if they were from reliable publications, because they explicitly state "lawful good". Ideally they would make "dungeons and dragons" clear as well, but I would have no objection to them. However, other editors here insist the articles needs "real-world examples" not fictional ones, for whatever reason. bridies (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The controversy here is whether self-evident objective facts even need sourcing. The article states that the scout oath contains phrases consistent with lawful good, and provides examples. The article no longer makes any claim that the scout oath is an expression of a lawful good ideal. In its current form, demanding sources for objective facts is just as silly as demanding a source for the statement 2+3=5. =Axlq 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I will reiterate that this assertion, even if we consider it to be an "objective fact" (which I and others do not), must be supported by a reliable secondary source, per WP:OR. This policy, the section WP:PSTS, states: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. As I and others on this page have demonstrated the claim in question is interpretive. The stated reasoning that "objective facts" do not require a source has no basis in policy and indeed policy explicitly states otherwise. To address Axlq's earlier attempted reductio ad absurdum, the hypothetical instance of someone demanding proof that 2+2=4: such a demand would be perfectly valid, if someone really felt the need to do so. It would simple matter to provide a citation: any published primary teachers' textbook will surely tell you that "2+2=4". If the claim is both objectively true and worthy of note it will be covered in secondary sources; it is as simple as that. It's a moot point anyway. No one is likely to dispute the validity of the claim "2+2=4" yet at least two editors have disputed the validity of this claim; that alone illustrates the difference.

The only instance in which a primary source is acceptable is to support a quotation or to support purely descriptive information. Despite Axql's insistence to the contrary, the claim is not purely descriptive. By taking the Boy Scouts' Oath, or the language used in the oath, and drawing parallels with a game mechanic and a concept of a fictional universe (i.e. the concept of "lawful good", as found in Dungeons and Dragons), you are making a critical inference. Regardless of how obvious you consider this inference to be, it is still violation of policy. If it were indeed a purely descriptive statement about the content of the Scouts' Oath (which it is not) and nothing more, it would have no place in an article about Dungeons and Dragons lore and game mechanics.

I will presently be removing the claim. The burden of proof (WP:BURDEN) is on Axql to prove that the content should be in the article, not on I or anyone else to prove it should not. Drilnoth, LexCorp and I have stated unequivocally that the content should not be added and Quietmarc has expressed serious reservations. There is no consensus that the material should be added and indeed the consensus is that it is at best highly contentious, if not unacceptable. bridies (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So when your 3RR block lifts, you will resume your disruptive behavior? See WP:POINT.

We need to go to dispute resolution then. I find your arguments above to be vacuous. The reducto ad absurdum argument doesn't apply to trival things like 2+2=4, but also to 741+892.6=1593.6. I guarantee you won't find a source stating that. You would have to resort to "original research" based on published rules of addition. Or just state it as a self-evident, objective fact.

Similarly, the scout oath contains phrases that are consistent with both lawful and good. The phrase "I will obey the law" is the definition of lawful, and nobody would dispute that. Saying "I will be good" (or variations) is similarly an undisputable expression of goodness. =Axlq 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive about my removing the content again: I have explained why and pointed out the burden of proof is on you , not me. I lost my cool and wilfully violated 3RR. So what, it won't happen again and it does not change the validity of my arguments. So where on this site do you see "741+892.6=1593.6" and what in context are you referring to. I am disputing your claim and I have quoted policy explicitly that demonstrates why my dispute is valid. All you have done is invent an imaginary rule that just so happens to give your claim a free ride around WP:OR and WP:V. bridies (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that you continue to revert my edits; because I happened to make an otherwise arbitrary 3 within 24 hours doesn't make my actions any less disruptive than your's WP:3RR. bridies (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Axlq left a 3RR warning on my talk page too, after I logged off yesterday. I don't log into Wikipedia much on weekends.

It seems to me that you are arguing against a version of the article that no longer applies. It has been modified. I admit your demand for sources were more justified with the older version, but I don't see it with the current version. I would agree that your continued reversions would constitute disruption.

Let me get this straight. You actually want "proof" that a statement like "I will be lawful" is a statement consistent with lawful? Since when do we need sources for tautologies?

Gotta go on an errand, will check back in later today. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No I have read the amended version and yes, I still dispute it. Furthermore, it is not so much the statement itself, but its context within an article about "Lawful Good (Dungeons & Dragons)" which demands justification. I have tried to make this as clear as possible. bridies (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further it requires a supporting source explicitly placing it within the context of D&D game mechanic/concept "lawful good", not a mere dictionary definition of "lawful" and/or "good". bridies (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong regarding mathematical calculations. WP:OR states: The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age) that add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources. [edit] This accounts for the exception of mathematical calculations and completely negates Axql's argument. Mathematical calculations are an explicitly stated exception under WP:OR, Axql's blatant original sythesis WP:SYN (sorry "stating objective facts") is not. bridies (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Scout's Oath is Lawful Good is total OR. Even if true, it would need a reliable source per WP:UNDUE. I am speaking as a lover of D&D and Wikipedia. Check out Tomb of Horrors, my lates triumph. The module has multiple traps that kill or completely incapacitate your character, with not saving throw, and and I couldn't say it was difficult until I found some reliable sources that said it was difficult. Luckily, I did. Look for sources, and ye shall find. I know Dragon has tons of articles on alignment. They'll have something much more interesting to say than what we can come up with. They'll probably talk about how penalties for acting outside of your alignment is penalized in some campaigns, and not in others. I know I used to have a Paladin who shot first and asked questions later. If you've got the power, use it, then heal yourself and leave your companions high and dry. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Straw man argument. The article does not claim the scout oath is lawful good. It says only that the scout oath contains phrases consistent with both lawful and good. I have argued that those are objective, indisputable, self-evident facts. There is no synthesis here. So far, in the above discussion, nobody has shown any basis for denying that the phrase "I will obey the law" is consistent with lawfulness, or that "I will help others" is consistent with good. All the blather above has so far completely failed to address this point. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying the phrasing is "consistent with lawful good intent" is clearly opinion, clearly takes the oath out of context (by placing in a section about a dungeons and dragons game mechanic/in-universe concept) and clearly implies the previous explicit claim that was argued about above. I have made this clear about half a dozen times and it's so glaringly obvious that it's hardly surprising editors don't feel the need to regurgitate it all over again. I've quoted explicitly several times from policy supporting the claims. You and Axql have offered nothing from policy to support your claims. The only thing you offered is the analogy to mathematical equations, which I again negated by quoting explicitly from policy. It's you and Axlq who have completely missed the point and continue to "blather" by simply saying "no no no it's fine, nothing to see here". Every uninvolved editor who has commented has agreed that a secondary source should be provided and Axql himself admits it very unlikely one exists. WP:OR WP:V WP:POV bridies (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take care to distinguish between what I say on this talk page versus what is said in the article. This discussion concerns the scout oath edit as it currently stands in the article.

Good catch on the math example, by the way. I didn't know about that. It seems to me that we're discussing something that policy doesn't explicitly address. "The sky exists" doesn't need citation. If you can show where policies state that tautologies require citation, you might have a convincing argument. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yawn, it is not a tautology; I have explained why several times, and you have simply ignored my statements. I am not going to repeat myself ad nasueam. As I have pointed out, every uninvolved editor has agreed with me that a secondary source must be provided, more will continue to do so. If you want to continue to insist policy doesn't cover this, be my guest. bridies (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If it were a tautology, it's context in the article is completely inappropriate (as I've pointed out several times, and as you have ignored, several times). bridies (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither have you addressed that by your rationale "I will obey the scout law" is also evil. --LexCorp (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Axlq gave several alternative examples above, showing how basing arguments on your own bias don't work. You are equating "scout" with "evil". There are two alignment axes. "I will obey scout law" is an expression of lawfulness, and you agreed. On the good-evil axis, the phrase is ambiguous, so there's nothing further to say. You are the only person here making a claim about that phrase with respect to good and evil. I see no reason to address this point further, as it has been addressed several times already, and it is irrelevant to the question of whether self-evident facts like "I will obey scout law" is lawful requires sourcing. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a majority view outlet. Substantiate or revert your edit. It is that simple.--LexCorp (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that scout=evil needs to be substantiated instead, if that's your basis for argument.

Who said Wikipedia is a majority view outlet? No one.

"Substantiate or revert"? Sorry, your ultimatum is what we're arguing about, and has not been resolved. I have taken the position that objective self-evident facts, tantamount to tautologies, do not need substantiation, and I see nothing in the policies requiring it. So far nobody has disagreed that phrases like "I will be lawful" is consistent with lawfulness. I suggest we take this to a formal dispute resolution. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

yep that is the key. Both edits must be substantiated. Neither is. So both get taken out. At last you seem to understand how this works.

Don't agree. You offer no new argument or support from policy. Multiple comments on appropriateness of WP:OR and thus WP:Burden is on you--LexCorp (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Scout Oath arbitrary section break 2

Bridies: After reading this whole discussion again from top to bottom, I will admit you have a point about in-universe examples. So I ask, is it your intent to restrict this article from containing real-world examples? And how do you address the examples given in Complete Scoundrel that are clearly not in-universe? Policies don't address your desire for in-universe either. Just trying to gain some understanding here. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is definitely not my intent to restrict this article to fictional examples. The claim about the boy scouts oath would be acceptable (well, maybe the POV controversy would be an issue), if it came from a secondary source. This [5] is what I would find acceptable (see the "real world" section), but in a reliable source (I think this particular example is a self-published blog). The source must make it clear they are talking about "lawful good" (or whatever alignment) in the context of D&D, drawing parallels with real life examples. bridies (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The above article (called "dungeons and dragons in real life") states Police Officers and Firefighters - they ideally fall into the Lawful Good alignment. . This is the kind of explicit statement and context that is needed. bridies (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who has read this discussion, my opinion, wanted or not, is that there is enough controversy over this particular example to say that it should be excluded. I can understand that it is idiosyncratically understood by the majority that the Scout Oath is an example of the Lawful Good, but WP:V explicitly requires that anything written here may be challenged, and if it is challenged it must be defended. Basic mathematical truths are exempt, but the list of exemptions is extremely small, any doubt whatsoever is as good as total doubt. So far, a reliable source has not been produced to meet the challenge, and a simple assumption that the challenge is not valid isn't good enough. However, I would argue that the Police is not a better example, as in many parts of the world the word "Police" has negative connotations, especially among wartorn or oppressed nations. I would argue that the Police are more often Lawful Neutral - they uphold and enforce the law and it is not their job to question the relative validity of that law. Baldur's Gate, a computer game based on D&D, cites Magistrates as its example of Lawful Neutral, and I would say the same holds for the Police. However, I do not have a reliable source to back it up, I am merely saying that I would challenge it if it were used. Clearly therefore we must be extremely careful as to what example we use. What is not in question however is that our examples must be non-fictional in order to remain out of universe. Just my two pennies there! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What Caissa's DeathAngel said. My sympathies on the task of trying to find a reliable source which talks about real-world examples of alignment, and good luck at it. You could try looking in the manuals or in Dragon, but I'm not sure where else you'd have any hope of finding something.

Without a reliable source, speculative examples like these are forbidden original research. Sorry. arimareiji (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth is I have to apologize to the wiki community. WP:V could not be more clear as to the legitimacy of removing the oath. Jet I tried to reason here the removal in an effort not to offend regular editors. This prompted an absurd discussion on the WP:OR and WP:NPOV policies. Next time I would be more forcefully WP:bold.--LexCorp (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

tagged resolved on the WP:POVN as discussion is settle.--LexCorp (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Bridies, thanks for the explanation. I also appreciate the comments by Caissa's DeathAnge. I understand the reason to remove the example until such time as a source (other than a forum or blog) refers to the Scout Oath in a D&D context. I still disagree that the policies are clear on citing sources for self-evident facts that pass the "reasonable person" test. But that's an argument for the policy pages, not here.

LexCorp, in the future try to keep your personal biases out of the discussion; it really does diminish the force of your arguments. You said you don't like talking about policy. Accept the fact that policy is the only leg you have to stand on during a content dispute. Arguing from personal bias only serves to derail a train that could be heading toward a resolution.

Axlq, you haven't appeared for a day or so. I hope you see this message. I came across this article last weekend when I happened to notice the change to remove the Scout Oath example you introduced way back when, and I did my utmost to defend it in the face of what could be considered spurious arguments. However, I now agree with the consensus to remove it until you can find a source that mentions the Scout Oath in a D&D context. Please accept that consensus and look for a source, and if you feel (as I do) that policy needs clarification, continue on the appropriate policy talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Got the message. While I'm sorry to see my original contribution go away, I can understand it. If a good source ever comes up, I will restore my edit. =Axlq 06:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Magazine 101 p18

Extrat from For king and country, An alignment system based on cause and effect: In the real world, good and evil are invented concepts. Societies label their own values as good, and those of the enemy (or the threatening or the unknown) as evil. In the simple campaign described above, this would not do; a character who makes his living by killing things wants to know that the enemy is truly evil, not just a perceived evil. So realism had to be abandoned. If this opinion is consensus or policy within TSR or WotC then I am afraid we will not find a real world example beyond those of other fictional works.--LexCorp (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

further Absolute alignment is inevitably defined from one society's perspective, and thus makes no sense for any of the others that coexist with it. In actual fact, the alignment system which is spelled out in the AD&D game rules applies to a society which is not even a part of the game, and so upon examination, every character naturally finds himself incompatible with his professed ethos. Alignment makes sense in a simple game. But AD&D games today often operate on a level so sophisticated that the worlds we create give rise to inhabitants no less realistic, events no less consistent, than those in our own world. Yet these characters whom we seem to know as well as we know ourselves must still choose an absolute alignment, a label which upon examination is rife with contradictions.

If you read the whole article what I think they are trying to say is that AD&D alignment system cannot be applied to real life. No matter how large our desire to do so. As such I think that maybe we should include something like this in the article. By the way article is by Paul Suttie. Don't know him.--LexCorp (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: the article says that if you want realism in your campaign then you have to drop the AD&D alignment system for a much looser one that is personal to each character. In arguing this point, they imply that AD&D alignment system is too rigid to ever be applied successfully to a real life situation. This is my take on the article. If any other editor have access please comment on it.--LexCorp (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd go a step farther. Be careful not to "connect the dots" to reach conclusions the source article doesn't make, but I think this excellent commentary should be reduced to summary form and included on the main page. Just be sure to attribute it as the author's opinion, i.e. something like "Paul Suttie argued in Dragon magazine that blah blah blah."

I'm personally curious, was the article written before or after the infamous coinage of "Axis of Evil"? arimareiji (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the September 1985 so I think is is reasonable to say "axis of evil" was not coined yet. I share same feeling about WP:SYNTHESIS that is why I ask for others to read the article. The article is not straight forward at all. It mainly deals on how real civilizations (Saxon, french medieval, vikings) will need different alignment systems within a AD&D campaign.--LexCorp (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)