| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
tldr
So...what was the intended goal of this again?
Why am I doing this? It's quite simple; I'm tired of seeing the phrase "Alignment X with Y tendencies...
Posting your article/essay/thing will do little to impact what you see here on the boards; I doubt you'll have several hundred people smacking their foreheads with the backs of their hands exclaiming "of course!" and suddenly conforming with your views on the alignment system.
The alignment system adds useless bloat to D&D/PF. Your goal of not seeing alignment views that differ from your own can be easily achieved removing alignment from the core game system in your own games and ignoring it in the games of people you don't play with, which seems a lot more elegant of a solution than the long opening post.
When people say "...with X tendencies", they don't necessarily (or even normally) mean "...with occasional intentional breaks from a normal pattern in order to behave like X." I don't personally feel that there's anything in the word "tendencies" that suggests that at all. What it means is more like, "if you plot my character's actions on the standard 3x3 grid, the actions - especially the big, defining actions - tend most heavily towards the alignment I have. However, compared to many other characters of this alignment, there's significantly more 'bleed' into some other square. Since the alignment scale only has three grades in each direction, this can't be represented with just a two-letter alignment, but I think it's an important enough facet of the character to mention."
I suppose I wasn't entirely clear. I'm not particularly interested in changing anyone's mind. If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't be on the internet. This was more of a kathartic action for me.
Perhaps you should start a blog instead. Those are much better suited to cathartic rants.
But you'll change exactly the same number of minds on a blog as you will here.
Because despite being a "rant," I laid out a pretty strong foundation and figured a gaming forum that has alignment-related debates on a fairly regular basis would be better suited to discussion than a blog that no one will ever see.
Yes, plenty of lively alignment debates here on the Paizo forums, and they are always fun, pleasant conversations that never result in insults or condescention, just like those involving paladins, monks, or rogues or about how casters steal martial characters' lunch money. :)
I don't have any lunch money to be stolen. :(
@Joyd
Our experiences differ. Typically, when players approach me with the phrase "X with Y tendencies" They're making an excuse to not have a definitive character personality, and their actions are almost always driven by (attempted) powergaming.
I can definitely relate to that. As a DM, I see time and time again that for many players - probably a sizable majority - "pragmatic non-horrible" is the default alignment. Players (and I'm obviously speaking in very broad generalities here) are pretty good for the most part at sticking to their alignment until there's something physically on the line, and then they go with whatever's (in a very abstract sense) most profitable, as long as it's not super heinous. That's not necessarily unrealistic; I think most humans are more likely to deviate from their normal behavior (for good or for ill, although probably more typically for ill) if there's more at stake, but only violate sacred values (in the technical sense of the term) under the most extreme circumstances. For a player playing a game, they're one step removed from actually holding the values or having the behavior patterns their character has. A player and his character might be in agreement that, for example, you shouldn't lie to a grieving widow to get a +1 sword, but the player might still do it, since he's not really violating his own mores about that sort of behavior in the process of following through on his (probably subconcious, unexamined and unstated) "principle" that when you're playing a game you should make game decisions that help you succeed at the game's goals, barring significant outside circumstances. (That's not a deep-held moral principle for most people, just a basic decision-making guide.) Most (though certainly not all) players will bend towards whatever course of action is most likely to be successful provided it doesn't violate any of their beliefs about what's truly awful, thus the tendency towards the Pragmatic Non-Horrible (PNH) alignment.
I don't have any lunch money to be stolen. :(
I'm sure you've got some stashed away somewhere. You don't look like one 'o them "vow 'o perverted" monks.
|
TOZ: ** spoiler omitted **
It is indeed the same ability, but I still need to update Auris to the current rules. He's mostly legal, but I have to doublecheck. Mettle is just one of many tempting Sutra choices I must make.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always viewed alignment as:
Good/Evil - Morality - there is a definable position regardless of intention that cannot be broken and is set by forces far more powerful than human intention.
Lawful/Chaotic - Ethics - do your actions benefit the majority or the minority (possibly even a minority of self).
In that sense, I agree with your definition of Good/Evil, but disagree that Law/Chaos simply defines long-term behavior. For example, a LG character would likely defy orders, possibly even rebel, if they discovered their lord has always been a succubus (remains dedicated to justice). By your definition, such a character would continue to follow orders until ordered to perform something evil (consistency trumps moral position, as the "immediate" action is not part of the characters normal behavior). Or am I missing something?
I like this!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil people don't act for the purpose of hurting others. That's stupid, comic-book evil genius evil, and nobody works that way. It's generally an attempt by evil people to shove evil so far into the realm of ludicrously stupid that they'll be considered neutral or even good. Neutrals do consider others in their dealings, because it's easier that way, so, sorry, this isn't cutting it.
Evil people don't act for the purpose of hurting others. That's stupid, comic-book evil genius evil, and nobody works that way. It's generally an attempt by evil people to shove evil so far into the realm of ludicrously stupid that they'll be considered neutral or even good. Neutrals do consider others in their dealings, because it's easier that way, so, sorry, this isn't cutting it.
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that. Evil people certainly enjoy causing pain to others in my games, although only a few are blatantly sadistic.
@ OP: Before I give my opinion about all of this, allow me this observation:
Your entries on Law/Chaos seem to give a description of what Law and Chaos are.
Your entries on Good and Evil give example on how a good/evil character act.
You'd get a much stronger argument if you harmonized your descriptions. There's a lot of reference to "Good action", but the reader cannot know what a good action is if no damsel in distress or beggar are present. Worst, you get some reference to "generally accepted good actions, which leads to believe that Good and Evil are relative, making weak alignment references. For example, a situation arising were intentionally saving the damsel in distress becomes an Evil act becomes paradoxical, invalidating your system.
'findel
Jerry Wright: My point is that the purpose of hurting someone is not the hurting. It is getting sexual satisfaction, a power trip, self worth that is the point. Only a moron would hurt someone if they did not gain something from it. What I said still stands. And I have done my studying. One of the defining traits of an evil person is CALLOUSNESS, i.e. Not caring if others get hurt when you do what you want to do. This was put by the original poster as neutral, something I feel fairly confident in questioning. So, right back atcha, do some studying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting: "I apologize if I inadvertently come off as harsh or rude during this process--it's not intended." Followed by, "Jump off a cliff." Hmm... Though you did say, "inadvertently," so I guess you're off the hook for this one ;)
Anyway, to the actual thing I want to say: I disagree with lawfulness corresponding to predictability and consistency. I believe "chaotic" is really supposed to be "anarchic", and I recognize this is arbitrary, but there you have it. Can predictability and personal codes be part of lawfulness? Sure, and the rules say as much IIRC. But it's not "useful" to do that, in my opinion. And here's why:
Laws are basically agreements of conduct for a group of people. Citizens in lawful societies rely on laws to make assumptions about people. Laws (ideally) help them feel safe and secure. Consider two common penalties for breaking the law: imprisonment, execution. That tells you a lot about society: "follow our rules, or we'll remove you".
Some examples (as close to neutral in the good/evil axis as I can conveniently get them):
Suppose you have a pyromaniac. He may not want to hurt people, so he decides only to burn down abandoned structures, and does it using a strict procedure he's codified, for safety. To the townspeople, various buildings are burning down around town, and this scares the them, since that is not supposed to happen. Their line of defense (law, law enforcement) is failing, and they are vulnerable. I imagine learning that the arsonist follows a procedure of safety would offer little comfort. After all, what does this maniac know of safety? I consider this arsonist chaotic.
Conversely, consider a person who spends a lot of time complaining to law enforcement about various laws being broken. He's not obeying laws because he feels he needs to, he believes in the system wholeheartedly. He's a model citizen, save for the fact he's a major annoyance, overwhelming the police with reports of suspicious activity. His duty, after all, as a good citizen. But maybe he doesn't have a checklist. Maybe he's insane, and one day he's hanging out in stores, pretending to browse, but really watching out for shoplifters (which is not illegal in this case, just rude). Or another day, he's passing out pamphlets encouraging better vigilance (for which he got a stamped permit to do). "What's Smitty up to now," the townsfolk ask. He's so unpredictable! And yet, absolutely lawful.
This sort of breaks down in "lawless" areas, such as the oceans or badlands. But in those cases, there could still be unwritten laws (e.g. "no raids on enemy camps during a full moon"). As for true hermits, completely isolated from society? "Neutral".
Simplified: Good/evil is a classification for universal conduct, law/chaos is a classification for societal conduct. Be good, and you get into a pleasant afterlife. Be lawful, and you won't get fined or go to jail.
The OP's take on lawful vs chaotic doesn't really work for me.
Like a couple other posters, I personally ascribe to the theory that the two axes of alignment describe Morality (good vs. evil) and Ethics (lawful vs chaotic). When viewed thru that paradigm, the degree to which someone is OCD is fairly irrelevant to me. FWIW though, I personally haven't really seen anyone try to pull the "tendencies" stunt since 2nd Edition.
rttlp: You might enjoy checking out Crime and Punishment by Keith Baker. IMO it takes a fairly objective look at these issues from the standpoint of how a fantasy-based legal system would evaluate actions. I've found it to be a good read so far.
The OP's take on lawful vs chaotic doesn't really work for me.
Like a couple other posters, I personally ascribe to the theory that the two axes of alignment describe Morality (good vs. evil) and Ethics (lawful vs chaotic). When viewed thru that paradigm, the degree to which someone is OCD is fairly irrelevant to me. FWIW though, I personally haven't really seen anyone try to pull the "tendencies" stunt since 2nd Edition.
rttlp: You might enjoy checking out Crime and Punishment by Keith Baker. IMO it takes a fairly objective look at these issues from the standpoint of how a fantasy-based legal system would evaluate actions. I've found it to be a good read so far.
Funny, I come from the opposite side for law-chaos than you. I treat it as how structured the person's daily life is. If they seek a very structured lifestyle (hierachies between personal relationships, significant planning on their daily routine, little deviance in said routine) they move towards lawful. If they seek more free-flowing and organic relationships and little or vague planning of daily activities, they move towards chaos.
Like a couple other posters, I personally ascribe to the theory that the two axes of alignment describe Morality (good vs. evil) and Ethics (lawful vs chaotic).
I think we had this discussion before Laithoron, but I have a difficulty differencing morality from ethics. They serve as nice etiquettes for the two axis, but I have hard time describing them apart. Most dictionary describe morality as the philosophical differentiation between right and wrong, and ethics as the application of good behaviour (or something along those lines).
The fact that LAW means both order and abidance to social codes (read civil laws) often leads to paradoxical situations, or at the very least to situations where a player declares to be lawful for its discipline or law-abiding behaviour, but not necessarily both (and the obligatory "whose laws?" question).
I am wondering, Laurefindel, do you consider yourself lawful? Because it seems to me that a very lawful person would consider ethics a moral issue, whereas a chaotic sort of person might consider them unrelated.
Every D&D alignment test puts me at lawful, but I inherently resist authority, participate in protests and live a "messy life". I am terrible at handing my taxes/insurance/bills/assignments etc on time. I can be easily distracted, rarely finish the projects I start and am a master procrastinator.
As much as my personal discipline is nonexistent, I have a very rational mind and am a logical problem-solver. While I cannot ignore suffering of others, I am cool-headed and can easily ignore panic, anger, frustration, sadness, pain (of my own) and remain efficient in most situations.
I am moved to pity and empathy quicker than to anger, even against those who wronged me. I believe in social communal programs such as free education and health care etc. Thus my "goodness" leads me to adopt a law-abiding behaviour and a "better if we work together" philosophy, but not out of discipline or order.
In other words, I find it hard placing myself within the alignment system. But to answer your question, I DO consider ethics a moral issue.
Resisting authority suggests chaotic, but participation in protests suggests an orderly method for dealing with the problems you perceive with authority. And your "work together" philosophy underlines that.
Self-discipline is not necessarily a requirement for a lawful outlook.
I think you are the better kind of lawful good--definitely NOT lawful stupid. :)
Well, good to ear that you don't consider me stupid...
But here's my issue with the description of law: everything I do that makes me "lawful", I do it first and foremost because I try to be a good person. I have a hard time shaking off the association of lawful and good. That's why I find the concept that Law = order and discipline interesting, because I can easily dissociate order and discipline from morality.
In most concepts that people would associate with Lawful Evil, the (undeniably) Evil guy may use the law (or modify it) depending on what's more convenient, or realize that an orderly society is easier to master than an unruly bunch potential rebels, but that doesn't make the evil guy necessarily lawful; it makes him opportunistic. I'd rather describe the evil guy as orderly or unruly himself; that, IMO, is more useful R-P tool than whether he follows or encourages laws or not.
[edit] In addition, the system tends to muddle even more when you replace "laws" by "traditions". While these are in essence the same, we often associates traditions to more chaotic (often barbaric) characters.
The more I think about this, the more I find the law/chaos axis to be truly troublesome. I find it strange that deities care about how a person lived their life apart from being good or evil.
A pair of adventurers ride from town to town, seeking quests both mundane and epic. Repairing mills, foiling bandits, sanctifying a graveyard befouled by a necromancer, performing for terminal children, whatever. Great folks. One of them wakes up every day at sunrise, whips up a meal from a prepared schedule, exact ingredients purchased every Sunday, except for meats, which are Tuesdays and Fridays. Writes a journal entry. Polishes armor. Then meets up with colleague for the aforementioned good deeds. The other, not quite so organized. Wakes up whenever. Throws together breakfast from random ingredients. Eats directly on the cutting board. Cleans armor when the other complains about its aroma. Forgot to pay the innkeeper by noon, apologizes for being late, pays extra, and is forgiven. Shows up 5 minutes late for puppy hugging. Again.
This team hears a clamor -- a burning building! Little Suzy and baby Joseph are trapped on the upper floor! Our organized hero follows the HeroCo(R) hero guide, chapter for burning building infiltration, and dons a wet face mask for the smoke. But not our unstructured hero, who runs right into the building to search. The structured hero finally follows, utilizing "search protocol gamma". The disorganized hero finds the children first, and gets them out just in time, but is not so lucky him- or herself. The building collapses, killing the two heroes.
... who then are shoved into separate afterlives because one of them packed their backpack heavy-items first, and the other just tossed things in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caineach, Laurefindel: I would say that the Law/Chaos axis contains a lot more grey areas than the Good/Evil axis. However, I wonder if that's the point. If Good and Evil are the "right" and "wrong" outcomes, Law vs. Chaos may describe the different paths by which you can arrive at either outcome (i.e. "2+2" isn't the only equation resulting in the number "4"). I'm also wondering if there's a better descriptor for the Lawful vs. Chaotic axis than the 'Ethical' axis. The reason I've always referred to it as the ethical axis is not to imply that Lawful = ethical and Chaotic = unethical. Rather I've always taken it to describe the ethics by which someone is going to approach their morals. An ethical choice for someone who is lawful good and an ethical choice for someone who is chaotic good may be very different things.
To illustrate what I mean by this, here are some common qualities that I would attribute to the two extremes of the Lawful vs. Chaotic axis...
Chaotic: Artists tend to thrive on sensation and free-thinking. They are likely to take inspiration from whatever form they find it in. They probably don't care too much about how others go about their lives so long as it doesn't impinge upon their own freedom. Those that a society might deem as chaotic are probably not as concerned about precedent as they are with progress and individual rights — things that they believe too many rules (or at least an over-reliance upon rules) can smother.
An ethical decision for someone who is chaotic good would probably give stronger consideration to individual rights than to precedent.
Lawful: Those who are devoutly religious or clinically scientific may tend to work within a more codified set of parameters. They may be less apt to thrive on inspiration save where it comes from their dogma or methodologies. They may have more issues with others doing their own thing since it may directly defy their beliefs or threaten the stability on which their work depends. Those that a society might deem as lawful are probably concerned with precedent because they see it as the strong foundation on which progress is built.
An ethical decision for someone who is lawful good might involve acting in someone's best interest even if it might go against what that individual would want.
...
Naturally I don't expect that this explanation is perfect (it's certainly too short and general to be comprehensive), but it may at least help to explain where I'm coming from a bit better than my previous post. (Maybe.) :)
Edit: BTW, in a lot of ways I consider the Lawful vs Chaotic issue to be more pertinent when it comes to determining the alignment of a settlement or nation. For such purposes, I found pages 80-82 of the book I previously mentioned to provide particularly good examples of the legal structures of societies following each of the 9 alignments.
Caineach, Laurefindel: I would say that the Law/Chaos axis contains a lot more grey areas than the Good/Evil axis. However, I wonder if that's the point.
This is a personal preference of mine, but I wished that the Alignment components offered the least "grey" as possible, yet offered enough flexibility to create a character with as many shades of grey as you want when creating his/her personality.
As far as I'm concerned, the alignment mechanics is particularly useful when dealing with aligned spells, effects and abilities. For this reason, I'd like to know for sure and without hesitation that my character is LG, or CN, or whatever. Yet, I want to be able to create a complex character (in terms of personality) without having to go "oh my, this guy is a mess. I'll just average him as true neutral".
Perhaps this is a lost cause, but definitions like LAW = order and discipline is a step in the right direction IMO, even if it breaks the convention that LAW = respect of civil laws.
[edit] This is starting to derail the OP's subject (although he hasn't manifested recently). Those interested in discussing the necessity to redefine alignment (or not) could take it to my old alignment tread...
My solution is to axe it completely.
Yeah, of all the alignments, I have always felt that True Neutral was the least needed and should not exist as anything other than a description of the alignment for creatures with an animal intelligence. I have seen it cause more arguments than any of the others and the whole misunderstanding, intentional or accidental, of the whole "balance" thing, where the player declares that his character has to do something bad to balance out the good thing he just did or vice versa. And druids are just a pain in the hands of these kinds of players. I much prefer what Pathfinder did with druid alignments where they are only required to be some form of Neutral and not True Neutral.
My solution is to axe it completely.
You can't axe an axis :)
This is a personal preference of mine, but I wished that the Alignment components offered the least "grey" as possible, yet offered enough flexibility to create a character with as many shades of grey as you want when creating his/her personality.
Well, I just read thru your Law & Chaos descriptions, and it seems to me that we arrived at compatible definitions even if our approaches were somewhat different. (Although that does serve as an illustration about what I meant by Good and Evil being conclusions vs. Law and Chaos different paths than can be taken to either goal.)
You know, it just occurred to me that the Lawful vs. Chaotic axis might be better served by a political axis instead. That would certainly make more sense as to why there would be different afterlifes for people who are lawful good vs. chaotic good. I bet it would also be a lot more intuitive in today's society to have Conservative and Liberal rather than Lawful and Chaotic. After all, as has been pointed out many times, there's a lot of confusion as to whether or not what is lawful or chaotic should be relative to the laws of a given land.
What do you think?
Jerry: I'm not seeing the conflict. I was talking about equating (or perhaps replacing) Law vs Chaos with Conservative/Right vs Liberal/Left respectively. I've always considered politics to be a very personal matter so from my point-of-view Detect Law and Chaos would still function just fine.
Can you help me see where the breakdown in adjudicating those spells along political ideologies would be? Also, please bear in mind that I'm looking at finding a definition that works at both the national level as well as the personal level. After all, even a Chaotic Good nation will have its own set of laws.
At any case, I'm sure that a lawful society based on communitarian and orderly values is bound to be reflected by a largely law-abiding and typically "lawful" citizenry.
RE: policital axis: The concept is interesting, but I'm more interested about how alignment can influence a single individual (the character) as he/she faces effects base on that said alignment from friends and foes alike.
Ever Since Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved (which has no alignment, or alignment based magics); I have encouraged my players to develop Personality and Motivation blocks for their characters.
My beef with Neutral alignment is when players who want to play evil PC's, but are restricted from doing so, still try to get away with blatantly evil acts and pass it off as CN alignment.
Other players who want to play completely psychotic maniacs, and pass it off as CN alignment. CN alignment is not the "auto-crazy" alignment. If you want to wear water buckets as shoes and attempt to play a chicken like a lute, that's not your alignment talking...
As for True Neutral, as a DM it grates on my nerves when a player makes a character of TN alignment and can't be bothered to do anything in-game; just sits in the tavern all day doing nothing. Has to bribed or almost forced to "go adventure," and then complains the entire time. I am not running a world-simulator, I run adventures. If you want to pretend to sit in a bar all day, then go sit in a bar.
Now that I think about it, I might just remove alignment from my games altogether. Alignment is a nice descriptive idea, but it should be an description of a characters possible behavior, not a justification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I question that there's and "abuse" of any alignment that really necessitates this argument.
I don't, for I have seen it often.
I do agree however that this conversation is (as all other alignment treads invariably become) about how others interpret alignment, which for me is proof enough that alignments as written are ill-defined. I honestly cannot think of any element of D&D that has created such levels of argument since the dawn of 1st edition (or whenever alignment appeared).
Many had such bad experience with this subsystem that they removed it completely from their game and never looked back*
*except for TOZ, he says he never looked back but he's always poking his roguish head in threads like this one :)