Alignment and "Straddling the fence"


Prerelease Discussion


I'm not a hard core "Game Lawyer", and I would not dream of changing the alignment system as a lose guide to describing a character's stance on morality: Good vs. Evil, and Order: Lawful vs. chaotic...
I like several of the Alignment Memes on the web. it doesn't get any clearer than: follows rules vs doesn't, and nice guy vs jerk.

the bit I am pondering though is: neutrality.
Neutrality does add to the spectrum of choices for a character's "character". It is clear that some adhere to certain behaviors much more stringently than others.

There is a difference between the Lawful good paladin who is willing to forgive and strives to redeem through example...
And the good guy Law enforcer who is a touch... zealous.

thing is - in the hard and fast of it all - does neutrality really exist?

is the basic choice between morality: Nice Vs jerk
and the basic choice between order: follows rules Vs don't
think about it. A choice has to be made, one can't truly "straddle the fence". one is essentially good, or NOT. One abides by rules or won't!

I am sure that people argue for a spectrum of shades, I do too...
Yet in the grand scheme of all things, isn't it "splitting hairs"?

The old "woodcut" image regarding alignment: a chaotic evil rogue trying to murder a bound captive goblin, a neutral fighter leaning back against the wall, and a lawful good cleric trying to stop the rogue. Could one say that the choice to "DO NOTHING" isn't really a choice? That ultimately the fighter *MUST* choose a course of action? stop the rogue or kill the goblin prisoner?

one is either good, or not.
one is either for the rules, or not.
could it really be that ultimately there are only two choices?
if a room has two doors, how can you define your self as good, if you don't always stick with the door labeled good?

aren't those occasional missteps through the Evil door, a matter of personal convenience? and could the willingness to choose that evil door -even once, out of a million times- be a matter of excuses and cast a permanent shade on your character?

it is something to ponder.
a school bus teetering over the edge: save the kids, or push the bus over... isn't that the choice you are making even if you choose to do nothing? isn't doing nothing, essentially choosing to allow the bad result to happen, and hence, the choice to be evil?


Elemental95 wrote:
...

According to your logic, no one can ever be good, since even one act that does not result in a good outcome makes you irredeemably evil, forever.

However, what if the world works exactly the opposite?
What if even one act that results in a good outcome makes you irrevokably good, forever?


CrystalSeas wrote:
Elemental95 wrote:
...

According to your logic, no one can ever be good, since even one act that does not result in a good outcome makes you irredeemably evil, forever.

However, what if the world works exactly the opposite?
What if even one act that results in a good outcome makes you irrevokably good, forever?

hmm, I do not know. that is the point. also, the question is

is neutrality a valid choice for alignments?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like people often ignore the fact that most of the neutral alignments, or at least the non lawful ones involve making what seems like the most practical choice given the situation, whether the choice would be viewed as good or evil being somewhat irrelevant.

Good will choose an impractical and inconvenient choice for the sake of "goodness" and evil will often choose a convenient choice over other more practical options out of selfishness, spite, or hatred. Most descriptions of neutral alignments i've seen involve people who weigh the current situation against their own interest but wont go out of their way to pick a choice that would be impractical or inconvenient for them.


Ryan Freire wrote:

I feel like people often ignore the fact that most of the neutral alignments, or at least the non lawful ones involve making what seems like the most practical choice given the situation, whether the choice would be viewed as good or evil being somewhat irrelevant.

Good will choose an impractical and inconvenient choice for the sake of "goodness" and evil will often choose a convenient choice over other more practical options out of selfishness, spite, or hatred. Most descriptions of neutral alignments i've seen involve people who weigh the current situation against their own interest but wont go out of their way to pick a choice that would be impractical or inconvenient for them.

hmm, good points. yet, is neutrality a valid alignment choice?

Also, by what standards do we define good/evil? is there an absolute, objectively defined good we can use to measure ourselves?

A man kills a lion, good for the man/bad for the lion...
which matters more on the scales of right V wrong?

how?
Why?

Should pathfinder 2nd ed establish a standard of what is good in accordance with specific choices, so that abusive players don't play legalistic, hypothetical, semantic games?

stealing?
murder?
adultery?
gluttony, excess?
greed?
deception/lying?


how do we define a HERO as opposed to a Mercenary?
How do we define a cruel guild master, as opposed to a benevolent slave owner

is there an absolute line that shouldn't be crossed?
tell me, you can't really be for slavery as a good thing, can you?


I guess this would be a good example of what I'm talking about.

After a long back and forth the primary character has his nemesis at his mercy. The nemesis has done some profoundly illegal things in their feud but now he's helpless at the protagonist's feet. There's a risk if the nemesis is brought in and given to the appropriate authorities that his allies will see him freed but its not a guarantee.

This is irrespective of the law/chaos axis.

Good: Brings him in alive, if he wasn't killed in the struggle before being rendered helpless. Killing a helpless person who has surrendered should sit poorly with them and he's not an immediate threat, his freedom is only a chance after all.

Evil: Kills or tortures or otherwise vents their frustration from the feud on their nemesis ending in the nemesis' death. Screw that its punishment time for inconveniencing the protagonist.

Neutral: Thinks long and hard about the risks of bringing him in, and the likelihood of the nemesis getting free in the hands of the proper authorities as well as the amount of risk they pose to the protagonist or the protagonist's loved ones SHOULD they get free. If the risk is too high for their personal tastes, that nemesis gets a summary execution, if they think its not too much of a risk, to the authorities.


is good (or lawfulness) is a cultural perspective:
would a village of humans be justified in committing the genocide of a forest full of elves?

I don't buy it. Genocide has to be wrong, even if it provides you a benefit. yet, is this an absolute value defined objectively or an opinion?


There's a reason humans are listed at N in the bestiary. (maybe not in pathfinder i dont have it on hand but in basically every version of d+d prior)

A village of humans that genocides a forest full of elves unprovoked would undoubtedly be an evil community.

A village of humans that has been in a conflict with the elves long enough to forget the origins and finds an opportunity to wipe out the people they've been fighting with? Maybe more on the neutral side if the elves fight to the last.


yet, is neutrality a valid choice?
isn't it our choices that define us?

if pausing to think about a choice of action posses a dilemma, doesn't morality forcibly require a choice to be made?

It is a really deep rabbit hole. I let this go, but it is something I think about often. what is good defined by a cheliax citizen won't be good for everyone, everywhere...

all those poor slips...

so we can rule out culture and personal opinion as the way to define good - walk ten minutes into another neighborhood and the locals might have a very different idea for what is right, and an individual can devise an excuse for what they did, neither holds any definitive absolute for what good is because it would be a "matter of opinion".

I think personally, there has to be a standard set that is universal, that defines certain actions as wrong and others as good.


I see alignment as a trend or sum total of a persons perspective and actions. You can surely judge a single action, but that single action doesn't determine a character's alignment alone.

Law/chaos are methods of achieving results. A neutral character values both tradition and order, and progression and flexibility. What keeps a neutral character neutral, is lack of a strong drive towards law or chaos. Which is far more nuanced than follows rules or doesnt. So yes, neutral is definitely a thing.


Many Chelish citizens don't give a crap about good, they do what is law and that is whats important to (most) of them.

Neutral is what is most practical.

Also many humans (and other intelligent creatures) are neutral because they are good (on a small scale) and now and then fail (on a small scale)

What is good and what evil is sometimes hard to tell but on a general scale in PF and similar systems actually quite easy.


Seisho wrote:
What is good and what evil is sometimes hard to tell but on a general scale in PF and similar systems actually quite easy.

well, what is that scale based on?

Culture, or personal justification, can't be the scale because those aren't absolutes.

good has to be defined objectively, by a standard that is outside of whim, chance, and culture.

when the pathfinder society orders a party to murder former members because they once belonged to the shadow lodge, I found it disgusting and reprehensible. that is MY OPINION. in the grand scheme of things my opinion and the culture of the pathfinder society do not establish nor define what good truly is...


I think we can rule out history as a judge of what is right or wrong...
cultures and opinions change. what was fine then can be very wrong now.
also, in ten thousand years nothing we do matters at all,

take pollution long after we are gone: it won't just be the earth, it will be the earth plus plastic - take someone dumping toxic stuff now and the picture changes.

but good has to be defined and established objectively in our LIVES.
and yet, opinions and culture fail to truly establish any moral compass.

what does?


religion can't be the scale, because that is merely another culture...
I am of a mind to believe that good has to be defined universally, and stand as true no matter where, when, or why.

take the book "to kill a mocking bird" it describes a time where a man is judged by the color of his skin, and the defense attorney who just KNOWS that that is wrong.

Nowadays. all of us can agree that racism is wrong.

but by what standard did the defense lawyer have to support his choice of actions? The law? well, that don't fly. the Jim crow laws were on the books, and slavery has never actually been removed from the constitution...

there has to be an objective standard of what is good.
I am beginning to think it would take a god to establish the scale of what is right and what is wrong.

what does that mean for pathfinder, should there be absolute definitive rules for good V evil? I am beginning to think so, as opinion can justify ANYTHING.


Is this actually about good or evil or a philosophical debate?


This debate is only interesting if you think that 'good' and 'evil' are pure concepts with no overlap.

If you think that some actions are more good or less good than other actions, or if you think some things have both good and evil elements, then you can't take part in this discussion.

If you think of it as a continuum, there's nothing to 'straddle'. You're just somewhere on the continuum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elemental95 wrote:

religion can't be the scale, because that is merely another culture...

I am of a mind to believe that good has to be defined universally, and stand as true no matter where, when, or why.

take the book "to kill a mocking bird" it describes a time where a man is judged by the color of his skin, and the defense attorney who just KNOWS that that is wrong.

Nowadays. all of us can agree that racism is wrong.

but by what standard did the defense lawyer have to support his choice of actions? The law? well, that don't fly. the Jim crow laws were on the books, and slavery has never actually been removed from the constitution...

there has to be an objective standard of what is good.
I am beginning to think it would take a god to establish the scale of what is right and what is wrong.

what does that mean for pathfinder, should there be absolute definitive rules for good V evil? I am beginning to think so, as opinion can justify ANYTHING.

Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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 may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.


Planpanther wrote:


Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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 may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

okay, now. this is something to work with, but it is only a starting point. the flaw here is the degree of Significance, perspective and opinion. H.P.Lovecraft's great old ones don't notice us bipedal bacteria, They just don't care, at all. they may never consider their actions as evil...

we do care (I hope) and would try to do something about it.
I would also wonder if there is a way to explain to the old ones "Hey! we matter you jerk! STEPOFF!"

but that requires a definitive good that is not on a slider, or prone to change. cosmic horror beings who we deem evil because they are oblivious to us, because of scale: too big on the scale of dimensional powers, too mighty for any (perhaps all) of us to resist, perceiving time in alien ways...

they don't think their evil, not at all.
Me? I won't lay down for that steamroller - even if it was a force of nature.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Way I read it in PF1 CRB (le not in real life):

Good actively protects innocent creatures
Evil hurts or kills innocent creatures
Neutral would like to protect innocent creatures but does not

When told what to do by established authorities:
Lawful obeys
Chaotic rejects
Neutral does what feels best


The Raven Black wrote:

Way I read it in PF1 CRB (le not in real life):

Good actively protects innocent creatures
Evil hurts or kills innocent creatures
Neutral would like to protect innocent creatures but does not

When told what to do by established authorities:
Lawful obeys
Chaotic rejects
Neutral does what feels best

Hm.

I think it's more
Neutral will to protect innocent creatures without threat to themselves or it benefits them

Which is why we have these sorts of arguments.


Elemental95 wrote:
I don't believe in good as being finite and starting with me. [Italic] I cling to the idea that there is existence outside of myself, and that reality leads me to conclude that there is something "more" and that there are meanings and refrences and yes absolutes. [italics] I need this to be true, as without it there is no validity to existence at all.

That's the good part, once you accept oblivion, you can know joy!


Elemental95 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Elemental95 wrote:
Absolute definitive good can not be an opinion
Of course it can. Who told you it couldn't be?

That is a snide quip, I suppose you'd be just fine with being raped, beat with a tire iron and left bleeding and broken somewhere?

you'd be okay with others justifying your killer's actions, or mocking you because you "somehow deserved what you got"?

no, I would not. I would hope that you would not.
there has to be a definitive good. I mean it really think about it.
Are you a quantity that worthy of existance, with rights or
an accidental protoplasmic mass awaiting the final smear?

personal justification, cultural norms, laws, religions, history are subject to change and thus Can't define a substantive real good inherent in the universe and each of us.

somewhere, somehow, there are RULES to this game we call life.

That's a pretty bad argument. Just because SOME things can be defined as objetively bad, does not mean EVERYTHING can be defined the same way. Yes, if you go to extreme things, like rape, slavery and genocide, it's pretty easy to find an objetive definition that almost everybody will agree (and even then, not everyone would. There are people out there making excuses for nazism).

However, try the same with the more difficult topics. Give me an absolute proof that everyone agrees if it's right or wrong to marry someone of the same sex. If it's right or wrong to practice an abortion. If it's right or wrong to agree with euthanasia. If it's right or wrong to make preemptive strikes against possible terrorists, before they act, without trial. And so on.

Assuming "somewhere" there are rules, is to assume the Universe itself has moral rules. That's true, if there's a God that built it and have a moral compass. It's not true in any other situation, including if no God exists, if several different Gods exists with different moral compasses, or if God exists, but does not have a moral compass and do not care about good and evil.


Elemental95 wrote:
Planpanther wrote:


Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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 may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

okay, now. this is something to work with, but it is only a starting point. the flaw here is the degree of Significance, perspective and opinion. H.P.Lovecraft's great old ones don't notice us bipedal bacteria, They just don't care, at all. they may never consider their actions as evil...

we do care (I hope) and would try to do something about it.
I would also wonder if there is a way to explain to the old ones "Hey! we matter you jerk! STEPOFF!"

but that requires a definitive good that is not on a slider, or prone to change. cosmic horror beings who we deem evil because they are oblivious to us, because of scale: too big on the scale of dimensional powers, too mighty for any (perhaps all) of us to resist, perceiving time in alien ways...

they don't think their evil, not at all.
Me? I won't lay down for that steamroller - even if it was a force of nature.

Humans are as significant as ants to old ones. The closest humans could communicate with them is how canines communicate with humans. The old ones wouldnt argue they are not evil, they have evolved beyond the concept.

There is no objective good as you have pointed out. This is the oldest philosophers question. While there is no true answer for our reality, its a luxury we can exercise in our RPGs as an objective truth. Something which gives alignment value worth keeping, IMHO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure if cows could speak with us, they would had a bad opinion about our morality. We enslave them, milk them, force them to have children to our benefit, and kill them to eat them.

It's the same with the great old ones, except in that case, we are the subjugated specie.

Liberty's Edge

gustavo iglesias wrote:

I'm pretty sure if cows could speak with us, they would had a bad opinion about our morality. We enslave them, milk them, force them to have children to our benefit, and kill them to eat them.

It's the same with the great old ones, except in that case, we are the subjugated specie.

IIRC all large mammals that were not domesticated have been hunted to (near)-extinction, especially the herbivores. In a way, livestock and pets owe their continued existence to their usefulness to humankind

Which IMO gives even more flavor to your Great Old Ones comparison ;-)


Is neutral a valid choice? All I know is my gut says maybe.

After further thought I have no strong feelings one way or another.

If I don't survive these playtest boards tell my wife I said hello.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

Is neutral a valid choice? All I know is my gut says maybe.

After further thought I have no strong feelings one way or another.

If I don't survive these playtest boards tell my wife I said hello.

I'd say yes, in that CN,LN,NG,NE are 'pure' that alignment, so purely chaotic, purely lawful etc, TN I have problems thinking of a cause for, balance being a bit vague...

Lantern Lodge Customer Service & Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A bunch of posts removed and thread locked.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Alignment and "Straddling the fence" All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion