Fair enough. Which, of course, raises the question about why you game with them....^If you met the players I have in mind, I think you'd change your mind . . . .
I don't any more. Although your question is fair about why I gamed with them as long as I did, so I'll take a shot at an answer: Where I have been (for instance, first in a camp near a small town in the South in the 1980s, and then in college), it is hard to find gaming groups that DON'T have such people, even though they also contain decent people. When I managed to find a group that didn't have such people, I moved on (in both cases). Of course, now I just can't find a gaming group, but that's another story(*).
(*)I intend to try to get into a PbP on these messageboards after I get a new computer so that I don't have to post from a phone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm no expert but I'm fairly confident making an exaggeration isn't a violation of the community guideline.
I didn't realize I was exaggerating; I thought I was classifying. If you want an opinion expressed in more parliamentary language, "preserve the balance" as a philosophical stance is both incoherent and ill-founded.
When we're talking about morals and ethics, we are fundamentally talking about motivations, because motivations both drive and color behavior. (For example, adopting a free-to-good-home kitten may be a good or an evil act, depending upon whether I intend to make a pet of it, or feed it to my snake. One act, two different motivations, and two different ethical judgements.)
D&D and its descendants broadly recognize four different (but nonexclusive) motivations for doing an act:
* Because it will help others
* Because it will help me
* Because I am expected to
* Because I want toThese should be immediately recognizable as Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, respectively. A person who is lawful good tries, as far as possible, to do the things she is expected to do that will benefit society; a person who is lawful neutral (Javert was mentioned) tries to do what society expects, irrespective of whether it helps or hurts others. A person like Robin Hood tries to do what will help others because he wants to, even if society says "no," and so forth.
The problem is that "preserve the balance" or "maintain equilibrium" or however you want to phrase it, is not itself a motivation, but a description of a pattern of action. Why should I maintain the balance?
Taoism, which is probably the closest major religion to Balance-worship in the real world, suggests that by following the Tao one will help both society and the practitioner. (From the Tao Te Ching, "If we could renounce our sageness and discard our wisdom, it would be better for the people a hundredfold. If we could renounce our benevolence and discard our righteousness,...
Anyone here who has played Ultima 7 part II the Serpent Isle, and its expansion The Silver Seed, has seen an example of balance done right. There is order and chaos, but combined they come up wiht balance. Most people are a follower of either order, that both have to exist or destruction will ensue. This is especially apparent through the games virtue system:
Order has three virtues:
Ethicality - The belief that there is great value in abiding by rules of conduct.
Discipline - The drive to complete a task and avoid the distractions that will prevent its completion.\
Logic - Clear, reasoned thought, free from any instinctual biases
Chaos has three virtues:
Tolerance - That which encourages the acceptance of all things.
Enthusiasm - The energy that allows one to perform great tasks
Emotion - The ability to perceive those feelings that come from the heart, as opposed to coming from the mind.
When Combined there are three of balance:
Harmony -Ethicality and Tolerance - The ability to be at peace with the self, the individual and the world.
Dedication - Discipline and Enthusiasm -That which permits one to surmount obstacles and lead others.
Rationality - Logic and Emotion -The ability to comprehend life and understand the world around us.
However, virtues unbalanced result in banes:
Prejudice - Ethicality without Tolerance - Disrespect for the beliefs and rights of others.
Apathy- Discipline without Enthusiasm - A spirit of hopelessness which retards positive action.
Ruthlessness - Logic without Emotion - Taking self-advancing actions without regard to the wants or needs of others.
Anarchy - Tolerance without Ethicality - A lack of standards of conduct.
Wantonness - Enthusiasm without Discipline - Acting without self-restraint.
Insanity - Emotion without Logic - An inability to overcome emotional impulses with rational thoughts.
So I would play a character more as servant of balance, not in the sense that both good and evil actions are their responsibility, but that you should use both good and evil, law and chaos, to guide your actions.
Sorry for the diatribe, just through it could provide meaningful context.
Fair enough. Which, of course, raises the question about why you game with them....^If you met the players I have in mind, I think you'd change your mind . . . .
I don't any more. Although your question is fair about why I gamed with them as long as I did, so I'll take a shot at an answer: Where I have been (for instance, first in a camp near a small town in the South in the 1980s, and then in college), it is hard to find gaming groups that DON'T have such people, even though they also contain decent people. When I managed to find a group that didn't have such people, I moved on (in both cases). Of course, now I just can't find a gaming group, but that's another story(*).
(*)I intend to try to get into a PbP on these messageboards after I get a new computer so that I don't have to post from a phone.
That's unfortunate, struggling to find good gamers is something I've struggled with before:/ That's the allure of online gaming in general, but there hasn't been a really good way to capture d&d to play it online.
Anyone here who has played Ultima 7 part II the Serpent Isle, and its expansion The Silver Seed, has seen an example of balance done right. There is order and chaos, but combined they come up wiht balance. Most people are a follower of either order, that both have to exist or destruction will ensue. This is especially apparent through the games virtue system:
Order has three virtues: [snip]
Chaos has three virtues: [snip]
When Combined there are three of balance: [snip]
However, virtues unbalanced result in banes: [snip]
So I would play a character more as servant of balance, not in the sense that both good and evil actions are their responsibility, but that you should use both good and evil, law and chaos, to guide your actions.
Why?
Actually, the framework you describe from the game seems pretty straight up NG; you should maintain balance between Law and Chaos because it is beneficial to others (or else "destruction will ensue").
Why should I maintain a balance between Good and Evil, though? It's well understood (see Axelrod's work on the prisoner's dilemma, or "what goes around, comes around" in the 1960s) that a group of "good" people will generally cooperate to the benefit of society as a whole (that is to say, "goodness" is itself beneficial to society, and hence "good"), and that "evilness" is correspondingly "evil."
So why should I not abjure evil?
Anyone here who has played Ultima 7 part II the Serpent Isle, and its expansion The Silver Seed, has seen an example of balance done right. There is order and chaos, but combined they come up wiht balance. Most people are a follower of either order, that both have to exist or destruction will ensue. This is especially apparent through the games virtue system:
Order has three virtues: [snip]
Chaos has three virtues: [snip]
When Combined there are three of balance: [snip]
However, virtues unbalanced result in banes: [snip]
So I would play a character more as servant of balance, not in the sense that both good and evil actions are their responsibility, but that you should use both good and evil, law and chaos, to guide your actions.
Why?
Actually, the framework you describe from the game seems pretty straight up NG; you should maintain balance between Law and Chaos because it is beneficial to others (or else "destruction will ensue").
Why should I maintain a balance between Good and Evil, though? It's well understood (see Axelrod's work on the prisoner's dilemma, or "what goes around, comes around" in the 1960s) that a group of "good" people will generally cooperate to the benefit of society as a whole (that is to say, "goodness" is itself beneficial to society, and hence "good"), and that "evilness" is correspondingly "evil."
So why should I not abjure evil?
I don't see a good reason to do so, but I would guess it is someone that is generally self interested, with no cares of what society cares about how they should act or not. They won't go out of the way to break or keep the law, or help or hurt someone else. Thus they are not very suited to an adventuring party, so someone would need a much better explanation than the one i provided to play a TN for my game.
Alignment should not serve as a characters motivation.
"Why do I avoid evil?" is a question of motivation, not alignment. Or, in another way, is there a meaningful difference in alignment of a character who believes in goodness and actively propagates goodness versus a character who believes in goodness but does not actively propagate goodness?
I don't see a good reason to do so, but I would guess it is someone that is generally self interested, with no cares of what society cares about how they should act or not. They won't go out of the way to break or keep the law, or help or hurt someone else. Thus they are not very suited to an adventuring party, so someone would need a much better explanation than the one i provided to play a TN for my game.Anyone here who has played Ultima 7 part II the Serpent Isle, and its expansion The Silver Seed, has seen an example of balance done right. There is order and chaos, but combined they come up wiht balance. Most people are a follower of either order, that both have to exist or destruction will ensue. This is especially apparent through the games virtue system:
Order has three virtues: [snip]
Chaos has three virtues: [snip]
When Combined there are three of balance: [snip]
However, virtues unbalanced result in banes: [snip]
So I would play a character more as servant of balance, not in the sense that both good and evil actions are their responsibility, but that you should use both good and evil, law and chaos, to guide your actions.
Why?
Actually, the framework you describe from the game seems pretty straight up NG; you should maintain balance between Law and Chaos because it is beneficial to others (or else "destruction will ensue").
Why should I maintain a balance between Good and Evil, though? It's well understood (see Axelrod's work on the prisoner's dilemma, or "what goes around, comes around" in the 1960s) that a group of "good" people will generally cooperate to the benefit of society as a whole (that is to say, "goodness" is itself beneficial to society, and hence "good"), and that "evilness" is correspondingly "evil."
So why should I not abjure evil?
I'm not sure they do -- what you just describe reads (to me) as the classic "selfish neutral" who's not big on the whole philosophical discussion stuff, and nothing keeps them from being adventurers. (Indeed, there's something to be said about a TN ranger who just wants to be left alone with his bear, but got roped into doing something stupid/heroic because someone waved a lot of gold at him to guide them across the Elijah Woods.)
It just means, that, again, the idea that there are deep philosophical reasons for maintaining the balance doesn't stand up to critical inquiry very well.
Alignment should not serve as a characters motivation.
You have it backwards. Alignment does not serve as motivation, but motivation serves as alignment.
Or, in another way, is there a meaningful difference in alignment of a character who believes in goodness and actively propagates goodness versus a character who believes in goodness but does not actively propagate goodness?
Yes. A character who does not take actions in order to benefit other people is not acting out of "good" motivation and therefore doesn't have a "good" alignment.
I'm not sure they do -- what you just describe reads (to me) as the classic "selfish neutral" who's not big on the whole...I don't see a good reason to do so, but I would guess it is someone that is generally self interested, with no cares of what society cares about how they should act or not. They won't go out of the way to break or keep the law, or help or hurt someone else. Thus they are not very suited to an adventuring party, so someone would need a much better explanation than the one i provided to play a TN for my game.Anyone here who has played Ultima 7 part II the Serpent Isle, and its expansion The Silver Seed, has seen an example of balance done right. There is order and chaos, but combined they come up wiht balance. Most people are a follower of either order, that both have to exist or destruction will ensue. This is especially apparent through the games virtue system:
Order has three virtues: [snip]
Chaos has three virtues: [snip]
When Combined there are three of balance: [snip]
However, virtues unbalanced result in banes: [snip]
So I would play a character more as servant of balance, not in the sense that both good and evil actions are their responsibility, but that you should use both good and evil, law and chaos, to guide your actions.
Why?
Actually, the framework you describe from the game seems pretty straight up NG; you should maintain balance between Law and Chaos because it is beneficial to others (or else "destruction will ensue").
Why should I maintain a balance between Good and Evil, though? It's well understood (see Axelrod's work on the prisoner's dilemma, or "what goes around, comes around" in the 1960s) that a group of "good" people will generally cooperate to the benefit of society as a whole (that is to say, "goodness" is itself beneficial to society, and hence "good"), and that "evilness" is correspondingly "evil."
So why should I not abjure evil?
Yeah, i agree with it not really standing up on to observation, but I just though it would be interesting to find a decent reason to "maintain the balance" but i knew it wouldn't really work.
I like what you said about a TN having gold waved in his face though, and it would be interesting to see a character start with that motivation but become attached to the party and adventure and change his alignment to NG or similar. Good idea
I like what you said about a TN having gold waved in his face though, and it would be interesting to see a character start with that motivation but become attached to the party and adventure and change his alignment to NG or similar. Good idea.
I can't take credit for it. Han Solo thought of it long before either of us did.
I like what you said about a TN having gold waved in his face though, and it would be interesting to see a character start with that motivation but become attached to the party and adventure and change his alignment to NG or similar. Good idea.I can't take credit for it. Han Solo thought of it long before either of us did.
Ahhh. You're right. He'll never die in our hearts.
Alignment should not serve as a characters motivation.You have it backwards. Alignment does not serve as motivation, but motivation serves as alignment.
Rather, motivation has some influence on alignment.
Or, in another way, is there a meaningful difference in alignment of a character who believes in goodness and actively propagates goodness versus a character who believes in goodness but does not actively propagate goodness?Yes. A character who does not take actions in order to benefit other people is not acting out of "good" motivation and therefore doesn't have a "good" alignment.
I disagree.
If that were the case a good character would be required to maximize goodness in every manner possible. Donating their wealth, refusing payment for services, and generally living a saintly life. If they did not then they could not be considered good.
An extreme example, no doubt, but basically Utilitarianism in a nut shell.
A character who takes at least some good actions (the specifics of what acts or how many isn't really important) on behalf of others, and who does not take acts against the benefit of others, should be considered good even if they do not take every opportunity to propagate goodness.
This isn't how DnDs alignment system works anyways, but it's still a fun discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. A character who does not take actions in order to benefit other people is not acting out of "good" motivation and therefore doesn't have a "good" alignment.
I disagree.
If that were the case a good character would be required to maximize goodness in every manner possible. Donating their wealth, refusing payment for services, and generally living a saintly life. If they did not then they could not be considered good.
No more so than a carnivore is required to eat meat all the time, or a football player is required to be in the stadium 24/7.
A character who takes at least some good actions (the specifics of what acts or how many isn't really important) on behalf of others, and who does not take acts against the benefit of others, should be considered good even if they do not take every opportunity to propagate goodness.
That's right. But turning that around, a character who does not take (any) actions in order to benefit other people is (by definition) not acting out of good motivation and therefore doesn't have a good alignment. Which is word-for-word what I wrote above, with a few additions for clarity.
I don't have any problem with a football player going home occasionally or a carnivore not eating because they're full. But if you don't ever play football, you're not a football player. And if you don't actively propagate goodness (at all), you're not "good."
Hum usually i go for:
Evil/Good --> What did you do?
Law/Chaos --> Why did you do it?
Both lawful and chaotic PCs can take exactly the same action of burning down the docks, but usually they will have a diferent reasoning to do so.
While the very action of burning down the docks doesnt matter the reasoning is either evil, good or even neutral (depending on the docks :P).
Yes. A character who does not take actions in order to benefit other people is not acting out of "good" motivation and therefore doesn't have a "good" alignment.
I disagree.
If that were the case a good character would be required to maximize goodness in every manner possible. Donating their wealth, refusing payment for services, and generally living a saintly life. If they did not then they could not be considered good.
No more so than a carnivore is required to eat meat all the time, or a football player is required to be in the stadium 24/7.
A character who takes at least some good actions (the specifics of what acts or how many isn't really important) on behalf of others, and who does not take acts against the benefit of others, should be considered good even if they do not take every opportunity to propagate goodness.That's right. But turning that around, a character who does not take (any) actions in order to benefit other people is (by definition) not acting out of good motivation and therefore doesn't have a good alignment. Which is word-for-word what I wrote above, with a few additions for clarity.
I don't have any problem with a football player going home occasionally or a carnivore not eating because they're full. But if you don't ever play football, you're not a football player. And if you don't actively propagate goodness (at all), you're not "good."
The point where I have contention is that one should not be required to take action to be good.
If you have a character with the opportunity to go out and make goodness but they do not, they should still be considered good. If the football player decides to stay home from a football game, he is still a football player.
It could be said, to some degree, that a good person is one who does not propagate evil and an evil one is one who does not propagate good. As Hippocrates wrote:
As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least, to do no harm.
Yes. A character who does not take actions in order to benefit other people is not acting out of "good" motivation and therefore doesn't have a "good" alignment.
I disagree.
If that were the case a good character would be required to maximize goodness in every manner possible. Donating their wealth, refusing payment for services, and generally living a saintly life. If they did not then they could not be considered good.
No more so than a carnivore is required to eat meat all the time, or a football player is required to be in the stadium 24/7.
A character who takes at least some good actions (the specifics of what acts or how many isn't really important) on behalf of others, and who does not take acts against the benefit of others, should be considered good even if they do not take every opportunity to propagate goodness.That's right. But turning that around, a character who does not take (any) actions in order to benefit other people is (by definition) not acting out of good motivation and therefore doesn't have a good alignment. Which is word-for-word what I wrote above, with a few additions for clarity.
I don't have any problem with a football player going home occasionally or a carnivore not eating because they're full. But if you don't ever play football, you're not a football player. And if you don't actively propagate goodness (at all), you're not "good."
The point where I have contention is that one should not be required to take action to be good.
If you have a character with the opportunity to go out and make goodness but they do not, they should still be considered good. If the football player decides to stay home from a football game, he is still a football player.
It could be said, to some degree, that a good person is one who does not propagate evil and an evil one is one who does not propagate good. As Hippocrates wrote:...
Issue being:
To be good, you need to take good actions. ONCE you are good, then not takion action could be considered neutral and shouldnt change your alignment much, even if over time you will drop.
Pretty much a football player doesnt have to be on every match, but he needs to play from time to time, otherwise he isnt a football player.
On the other hand if you decide to start eating lots and doing drugs and such, which lets say is evil, you lose your good status much quicker then if you were just doing nothing.
Issue being:
To be good, you need to take good actions. ONCE you are good, then not takion action could be considered neutral and shouldnt change your alignment much, even if over time you will drop.
Pretty much a football player doesnt have to be on every match, but he needs to play from time to time, otherwise he isnt a football player.
On the other hand if you decide to start eating lots and doing drugs and such, which lets say is evil, you lose your good status much quicker then if you were just doing nothing.
I don't see much value in parsing out the morality of a persons every act (or lack thereof) in life.
Is there a statute of limitations on goodly acts? Is not acting in your capacity to do good the same as choosing evil (or neutrality, in the terms of DnD)?
If morality where such a sliding scale that it constantly changes based on whatever acts you have most recently had the opportunity to pursue versus what you have already done, then one could never accurately judge if one was good or evil until one had seen the full consequences of ones actions. That is to say that I don't like to think of morality in reactive terms.
Issue being:
To be good, you need to take good actions. ONCE you are good, then not takion action could be considered neutral and shouldnt change your alignment much, even if over time you will drop.
Pretty much a football player doesnt have to be on every match, but he needs to play from time to time, otherwise he isnt a football player.
On the other hand if you decide to start eating lots and doing drugs and such, which lets say is evil, you lose your good status much quicker then if you were just doing nothing.
I don't see much value in parsing out the morality of a persons every act (or lack thereof) in life.
Is there a statute of limitations on goodly acts? Is not acting in your capacity to do good the same as choosing evil (or neutrality, in the terms of DnD)?
If morality where such a sliding scale that it constantly changes based on whatever acts you have most recently had the opportunity to pursue versus what you have already done, then one could never accurately judge if one was good or evil until one had seen the full consequences of ones actions. That is to say that I don't like to think of morality in reactive terms.
I agree but disagree. It's not about each individual action, but about actions over time. If say, you used to tend more towards evil, you would be an evil person. However if you were say, Jan Veljean, and had a rebirth, if you change your actions to become generally good you would be a good character.
The problem here is measuring a time period over which a character must act as such, and their motivation for certain actions. Say you generally do good actions, and the villain knows this. Thus he gets you to do mututaly beneficial things for both of you, while slowly subjugating you to the "dark side". IF anakin was done right, he would be a good example of this. Generally I would say change to a neutral long before going polar opposite.
Issue being:
To be good, you need to take good actions. ONCE you are good, then not takion action could be considered neutral and shouldnt change your alignment much, even if over time you will drop.
Pretty much a football player doesnt have to be on every match, but he needs to play from time to time, otherwise he isnt a football player.
On the other hand if you decide to start eating lots and doing drugs and such, which lets say is evil, you lose your good status much quicker then if you were just doing nothing.
I don't see much value in parsing out the morality of a persons every act (or lack thereof) in life.
Is there a statute of limitations on goodly acts? Is not acting in your capacity to do good the same as choosing evil (or neutrality, in the terms of DnD)?
If morality where such a sliding scale that it constantly changes based on whatever acts you have most recently had the opportunity to pursue versus what you have already done, then one could never accurately judge if one was good or evil until one had seen the full consequences of ones actions. That is to say that I don't like to think of morality in reactive terms.
Neutrality could be defined as either apathy, or not letting law, chaos, good or evil, guide your actions, but instead what you want to do or see is right. I agree that a TN as a "champion of balance" is kind of nonexistent, because who would act like that in real life?
Issue being:
To be good, you need to take good actions. ONCE you are good, then not takion action could be considered neutral and shouldnt change your alignment much, even if over time you will drop.
Pretty much a football player doesnt have to be on every match, but he needs to play from time to time, otherwise he isnt a football player.
On the other hand if you decide to start eating lots and doing drugs and such, which lets say is evil, you lose your good status much quicker then if you were just doing nothing.
I don't see much value in parsing out the morality of a persons every act (or lack thereof) in life.
Is there a statute of limitations on goodly acts? Is not acting in your capacity to do good the same as choosing evil (or neutrality, in the terms of DnD)?
If morality where such a sliding scale that it constantly changes based on whatever acts you have most recently had the opportunity to pursue versus what you have already done, then one could never accurately judge if one was good or evil until one had seen the full consequences of ones actions. That is to say that I don't like to think of morality in reactive terms.
Well, we all know the system is a can of worms and doesnt work perfectly :P.
With that said again i think you believe we make these changes like they are instantaneous, which isnt the case.
It shouldnt be easy to change ones alignment, atleast not after a little while after game start where the players have show how their PCs think, act and you have made fixes if you thought there were issues.
Pretty much if you have a good PC that decides to gradually just perform evil over and over, then eventually this may change his alignment, but lets say a good guy had a strong reason to burn out an orphanage, later he feels really sad and guilty of such an action even if it was his only option to save the world or whatever, this doesnt make him evil or neutral, just a guy who took a really evil action once and clearly understood its issues and such. It is an exagerated example, but the point is, it shouldnt be one action usually and often a player will act out this against action he had to take outside his alignment.
Not because of the alignment, but because a good person probably would feel bad about burning an orphange, that simple. If he doesnt feel bad at all, then there is something to consider. Ofc, all of which should be discussed with the player.
Going back to the whole football player thing. You cant become a professional football player in a day, NEITHER would you damage your body because you once or twice went out of your diet.
Both take time and show a change in your behavior, be it strick training and effort or a constant bad eating habit developed.
Neutrality could be defined as either apathy, or not letting law, chaos, good or evil, guide your actions, but instead what you want to do or see is right. I agree that a TN as a "champion of balance" is kind of nonexistent, because who would act like that in real life?Issue being:
To be good, you need to take good actions. ONCE you are good, then not takion action could be considered neutral and shouldnt change your alignment much, even if over time you will drop.
Pretty much a football player doesnt have to be on every match, but he needs to play from time to time, otherwise he isnt a football player.
On the other hand if you decide to start eating lots and doing drugs and such, which lets say is evil, you lose your good status much quicker then if you were just doing nothing.
I don't see much value in parsing out the morality of a persons every act (or lack thereof) in life.
Is there a statute of limitations on goodly acts? Is not acting in your capacity to do good the same as choosing evil (or neutrality, in the terms of DnD)?
If morality where such a sliding scale that it constantly changes based on whatever acts you have most recently had the opportunity to pursue versus what you have already done, then one could never accurately judge if one was good or evil until one had seen the full consequences of ones actions. That is to say that I don't like to think of morality in reactive terms.
Sure, in terms of DnD. Outside of that chaos, law, good, and evil are all relative concepts.
Again, none of my previous statements are how alignment in Pathfinder works. Pathfinder alignment is some kindergarden-tier, "heroes can do no wrong", mess of a system.
Neutrality could be defined as either apathy, or not letting law, chaos, good or evil, guide your actions, but instead what you want to do or see is right. I agree that a TN as a "champion of balance" is kind of nonexistent, because who would act like that in real life?Issue being:
To be good, you need to take good actions. ONCE you are good, then not takion action could be considered neutral and shouldnt change your alignment much, even if over time you will drop.
Pretty much a football player doesnt have to be on every match, but he needs to play from time to time, otherwise he isnt a football player.
On the other hand if you decide to start eating lots and doing drugs and such, which lets say is evil, you lose your good status much quicker then if you were just doing nothing.
I don't see much value in parsing out the morality of a persons every act (or lack thereof) in life.
Is there a statute of limitations on goodly acts? Is not acting in your capacity to do good the same as choosing evil (or neutrality, in the terms of DnD)?
If morality where such a sliding scale that it constantly changes based on whatever acts you have most recently had the opportunity to pursue versus what you have already done, then one could never accurately judge if one was good or evil until one had seen the full consequences of ones actions. That is to say that I don't like to think of morality in reactive terms.
Sure, in terms of DnD. Outside of that chaos, law, good, and evil are all relative concepts.
Again, none of my previous statements are how alignment in Pathfinder works. Pathfinder alignment is some kindergarden-tier, "heroes can do no wrong", mess of a system.
Yeah i tend to use the d&d system instead
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutrality could be defined as either apathy, or not letting law, chaos, good or evil, guide your actions, but instead what you want to do or see is right. I agree that a TN as a "champion of balance" is kind of nonexistent, because who would act like that in real life?
If you can get your hands on a copy, Eve Forward's exceptional book, "Villains by Necessity" includes an *actual* good example of a Champion of Balance druid (and should be required reading for any group wanting to play an Evil party.)
It's a little trope-y, but it really is a joy to read. I have yet to meet a gamer that didn't love it.
Well, we all know the system is a can of worms and doesnt work perfectly :P.
With that said again i think you believe we make these changes like they are instantaneous, which isnt the case.
It shouldnt be easy to change ones alignment, atleast not after a little while after game start where the players have show how their PCs think, act and you have made fixes if you thought there were issues.
Pretty much if you have a good PC that decides to gradually just perform evil over and over, then eventually this may change his alignment, but lets say a good guy had a strong reason to burn out an orphanage, later he feels really sad and guilty of such an action even if it was his only option to save the world or whatever, this doesnt make him evil or neutral, just a guy who took a really evil action once and clearly understood its issues and such. It is an exagerated example, but the point is, it shouldnt be one action usually and often a player will act out this against action he had to take outside his alignment.
Not because of the alignment, but because a good person probably would feel bad about burning an orphange, that simple. If he doesnt feel bad at all, then there is something to consider. Ofc, all of which should be discussed with the player.
Going back to the whole football player thing. You cant become a professional football player in a day, NEITHER would you damage your body because you once or twice went out of your diet.
Both take time and show a change in your behavior, be it strick training and effort or a constant bad eating habit developed.
The problem with taking a relativistic standpoint is that it doesn't really tell us anything helpful outside of defining acts on a case-by-case basis.
I do agree, however, that there is a difference between the goodness of ones person and the goodness of ones act. My point, then, and the case I am trying to make, is that with that the goodness of ones person carries far more weight than the goodness of ones acts.
Yeah i tend to use the d&d system instead
What's the difference?
Yeah i tend to use the d&d system insteadWhat's the difference?
Not like use it, but apply it's deifnitions and such
Last character I played CN was closer to Chaotic Selfish. He was a rogue who was looking out for himself above all. He wanted to live. If that meant stealing from other people.. score. If it meant letting others go first... even better. If he felt the other people in the party helped keep him alive...
He risked his life to keep them around.
He wasn't insane... He wasn't evil... He was in over his head quite a bit. He was not a hero... but he was no villain either. He didn't like societies rules and structure... preferred to make his own decisions... but was in a dangerous jungle out to kill him, so still worked well with the group.
CN is a very valid alignment and players that ruin it for DMs... will just go full neutral and ruin that next... It's a player problem, not an alignment issue.
Since then, I've played LG paladin and NG oracle... all vastly different characters from each other.
Admittedly, my NEXT character is Jekyll/Hyde Master Chymist who will be NG and CN... and HE will be pushing a bit closer to NE. I just don't have the real desire to play full evil... but he'll be close to the line. :D
Still a case of doing what he wants, when he wants... depending on how the game actually goes. That won't happen till 9th level, so time will tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with taking a relativistic standpoint is that it doesn't really tell us anything helpful outside of defining acts on a case-by-case basis.
Pretty much if you have a good PC that decides to gradually just perform evil over and over, then eventually this may change his alignment, ...Going back to the whole football player thing. You cant become a professional football player in a day, NEITHER would you damage your body because you once or twice went out of your diet.
Well, that's largely because alignment is supposed to be a description, not a behavioral straitjacket. If you have been behaving lawfully and evilly recently -- in the opinion of the Game Master -- your alignment is lawful evil. (From the rules, "In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment.[...] Unlike hit points or skill ranks or armor class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.") If you start behaving better, eventually the GM will notice and re-describe you.
My point, then, and the case I am trying to make, is that with that the goodness of ones person carries far more weight than the goodness of ones acts.
I reject this point entirely, I'm afraid.
First, the GM is not telepathic. But secondly, if your character never takes advantage of any opportunities to do good action, your character is not good. I don't consider phrases like "the goodness of ones person" even to be meaningful.
Last character I played CN was closer to Chaotic Selfish. He was a rogue who was looking out for himself above all. He wanted to live. If that meant stealing from other people.. score. If it meant letting others go first... even better. If he felt the other people in the party helped keep him alive...
He risked his life to keep them around.
He wasn't insane... He wasn't evil... He was in over his head quite a bit. He was not a hero... but he was no villain either. He didn't like societies rules and structure... preferred to make his own decisions... but was in a dangerous jungle out to kill him, so still worked well with the group.
CN is a very valid alignment and players that ruin it for DMs... will just go full neutral and ruin that next... It's a player problem, not an alignment issue.
Since then, I've played LG paladin and NG oracle... all vastly different characters from each other.
Admittedly, my NEXT character is Jekyll/Hyde Master Chymist who will be NG and CN... and HE will be pushing a bit closer to NE. I just don't have the real desire to play full evil... but he'll be close to the line. :D
Still a case of doing what he wants, when he wants... depending on how the game actually goes. That won't happen till 9th level, so time will tell.
Good idea for a character overall, having a multiple personality built in a the beginning.
I reject this point entirely, I'm afraid.
First, the GM is not telepathic. But secondly, if your character never takes advantage of any opportunities to do good action, your character is not good. I don't consider phrases like "the goodness of ones person" even to be meaningful.
In the context of Pathfinder goodness of ones person is entirely meaningful. Good and Evil are actual, physical things that exist beyond just concepts. Especially in Pathfinder, being good is far more important then acting good. For example, killing goblins is not an evil act because goblins are evil and it is not evil for a good creature to kill evil things. Opposing Iomadae for any reason is an undeniably evil act and gets your character stricken blind and dumb (Wrath of the Righteous).
Personally, I believe that as long as a person does not commit acts that treat others as a means to an ends rather than people (so murder, theft, etc). Obviously under that definition I can't really ever be an adventurer in Pathfinder and be a good person, but whatever. I'll do the best I can with the hand I'm dealt.
The problem with taking a relativistic standpoint is that it doesn't really tell us anything helpful outside of defining acts on a case-by-case basis.
Well i think the reason we can say the system is a mess relates exactly to nobody being capable of taking such a complex thing and turning it into a trully simple system that you just write out evil/good and that is that. Thus we get a can of worms that nobody has been able to fix as far as im aware.
Maybe one day we will get an AI that can quantify each action/PC into the axis perfectly haha, but i dont see it happening soon :P.
I do agree, however, that there is a difference between the goodness of ones person and the goodness of ones act. My point, then, and the case I am trying to make, is that with that the goodness of ones person carries far more weight than the goodness of ones acts.
I agree ofc, thus the reason if a PC is good, he wont stop being good because he took an evil action. Just like if he is evil, he wont turn good after saving a kid from a little accident.
But like usually in this subject, it is so very situational.
For example, you have a good agent, who entered the evil guys base to save the world.
Now to infiltrate he must time and time again kill innocent folk and perform other horrid actions, but he just has no choice if he wants to save the world. The famous greater good.
Time passes and eventually, he saves the world.
Now, how do you define this guys aligment after being in there and taking tons of evil actions?
Personally i would see how he feels about it. If there is guilty and sadness over the actions he had to take to save the world, then he might even still be good after doing all that evil, if there is nothing and he feels perfectly fine since it was all justified, then i wouldnt call him good anymore probably.
My point, then, and the case I am trying to make, is that with that the goodness of ones person carries far more weight than the goodness of ones acts.I reject this point entirely, I'm afraid.
First, the GM is not telepathic. But secondly, if your character never takes advantage of any opportunities to do good action, your character is not good. I don't consider phrases like "the goodness of ones person" even to be meaningful.
Well it is just a game, while i agree we cant guess what the player has in mind for his PC, we can ask and usually in a mature table it works fine. People have an actual reason for their actions and they thought it out.
If you ask the player of said agent, atleast in my experience, they would answer without issues what their thoughts and above all how they intend to continue playing that PC from that point on. Do they plan on being ruthless from now on? Do they intend to seek forgiveness? And so on.
It is like discussing over their first alignment, we must understand their thoughts about it as well as see the actions they take later.
Ofc, this is based greatly on the maturity of the players/GM, if one is just making up stuff to justify mass murder or clearly is saying things they dont mean, then it is much harder to have such an approach.
And this is just my take on this issue, which has had so many opinions over so many years haha.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flag on the play! 10 yard penalty for gross misrepresentation.Threatening or outright mocking to her face can net that outcome. Mocking or threatening any deity to their face is stupid. Thus being stupid nets you that, not disagreement.
Hwalsh and myself don't agree on much. Yet in this i'm in 1000% agreement. You don't mock or threathen a deity to his or her face and expect to simply walk away without a scratch. Being stricken Blind and Dumb is her going easy on the character. My take the character is dead and cannot ce brought back from the dead. Being Chaotic Neutral means being unpredictable and going against the norm imo. Not being outright insane and stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Hey, another discussion about Alignment! Having thoroughly researched the problems associated with Alignment, I recommend you check out this book here for solutions to common problems and a guide for adjudicating alignment issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chris,
Thank you for letting me know.