| rttlp |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Revision Version: 1.21
TL;DR PROVIDED AT BOTTOM
I have a tendency to get somewhat rant-y at times, so I must attempt to keep this brief and to the point. I apologize if I inadvertently come off as harsh or rude during this process--it's not intended.
Why am I doing this? It's quite simple; I'm tired of seeing the phrase "Alignment X with Y tendencies. (Where X is typically some form of 'Neutral' and does not involve the word Chaotic)" That statement makes no sense. The alignment chart is SET UP to accommodate those tendencies. The only reason you'd possibly say this is if you were wrong about being alignment X in the first place.
Now, first, let's be clear on what we're talking about...
The Alignment Chart is a 3x3 square; a 2-dimensional matrix. The important part here is the words 2-dimensional, implying that the system already has some depth to it. As such, it has 2 axes. The vertical axis ranges from Good, Neutral, Evil (from top-down) and the horizontal axis ranges from Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic (from left-right).
Yes, we all know this part.
Now, the Good-Evil axis...
Good: Typically, rescuing the damsel in distress is a Good action. Giving food to a beggar is a Good action. etc. etc. In some cases, this is not true, but that will be discussed in the Neutral section.
Evil: Typically, putting the damsel INTO distress is an Evil action. Killing someone arbitrarily is an evil action. etc. etc. In some cases, this is not true, but that will be discussed in the Neutral section.
NEUTRAL: On the Good-Evil scale, neutrality depends on knowledge. If you perform a Good action for Evil purposes then you have performed a NEUTRAL action. The same goes for Evil actions performed for the sake of Good. Also, complete disregard for Good or Evil at the time of taking an action is considered Neutral. This can include reactionary or insignificant actions (i.e. defending yourself from an attack[not regarding whether you kill them or not, that's a separate action] or pulling a shiny lever in a room, respectively).
The key to understanding the Good-Evil scale is that it's based on immediacy. Consistency is covered by Lawful-Chaotic (scroll down). As such, when you want to judge if an action is Good, Neutral, or Evil, you need to stop making it so complex and look at it as an immediate action. Was the action, standing alone, Good or Evil? Did the PC know that his "Good" action was serving an "Evil" purpose? Those are the two questions that can define Good-Evil. If the situation seems too complicated to be defined by these two questions, there is probably more than one moral action involved in your situation, and each should be judged separately.
Ha! But I've saved the BBEG's life! That's Neutral by your definition of knowing that I'm aiding evil!
No. That's a Good action. What you did after that is important. If you save the BBEG from, say, falling into a pit of lava, you've done a Good thing by saving his life. That's not negotiable. What a Good character would then do is apprehend the BBEG or at the very, very least chastise the BBEG and attempt to get him to turn to Good. If you let the BBEG free from your watch, on purpose, knowing that he will commit evil once he is gone, then that is an Evil action. That means you've made 2 moral actions, one Good and one Evil. The system works.
So if I didn't KNOW that the soldier I gave my sword to was the BBEG...
Then it was a Good action. You didn't know it was inherently Evil. The alignment chart is meant to measure actions, not consequences.
But, RTTLP, Neutral means performing Neutral actions!
There is no such thing in a heroic situation, unless you want to stand around doing nothing. The only SINGULAR actions that are truly neutral are those related to basic survival and instinct, i.e. feeding yourself, taking a bath, etc. That is why average citizens and creatures are generally True Neutral. They just go about their lives and follow their natures without KNOWING any different. Good and Evil actions require you to go out of your way to be Good or Evil. Compound actions can be neutral, singular ones have a much harder time of it.
But, RTTLP, I commit both Good and Evil actions, that makes me neutral!
No it doesn't. I'll go over that later. Scroll on down to the Lawful-Chaotic section.
I pulled the lever that dropped the BBEG into the lava just because I wanted to pull the lever, not because I wanted to stop him from casting his evil spell! That's Neutral!
B~!+!*#%.
Okay, fine, but what if I didn't know what the lever did?
I'm still willing to bet you were hoping it would stop him somehow.
Alright. What if I was in another room, unaware the BBEG even EXISTED, and pulled the lever because it looked shiny?
That's a self-serving (satiate curiosity), inane action, and is therefore Neutral.
Wait! Shouldn't a "Good" action performed for the sake of Evil be considered Evil? Also, vice versa.
No. The only time you would perform a Good action for the sake of evil (or vice versa) would be to save your own hide from the consequences of being caught doing a Good/Evil thing or to expedite the process of accomplishing your current goal (the latter typically only refers to Evil actions, coincidentally).
Expanding on the Previous Question...
If I didn't give the beggar coins, the king would never have let me into his court, allowing me to assassinate him.
There's always another way to do things, even if it's less effective.
But I had to break the innocent, scared guy's nose so that he would tell me where the secret cult was hiding before it was too late!
Neutral. A Good action would be to go looking for it without harming an innocent. Good, Evil, and Neutral are not inherently intelligent, and are very stubborn. Keep in mind that one Neutral action won't suddenly make your character Neutral. Consistency is covered by the Lawful-Chaotic scale. Please read that section, my reasoning will become much more clear once you do so.
But, RTTLP, this is just your opinion! I can define it my own way.
Yes you can. It just so happens that my way specifically accounts for ANY GIVEN SITUATION (again, for more info, scroll on down) and most of the other hackneyed definitions I've seen tend to make EVERYONE Neutral, which makes for very boring roleplaying. Also, if you have to say "with Y tendencies" and your alignment isn't X Chaotic, then you're wrong. End of story. The alignment chart was made to encompass you, stop trying to sit on one of the lines. You're free to disagree with me, but I'm explaining how the system was meant to work, disregarding player discretion. (Oh but you can't disregard... Yes I can. All of the rules in the Core Rulebook are subject to someone's discretion. If you're not allowed to disregard discretion, none of the rules would be printed at all).
Your system would cause me to switch alignment virtually every action I take!
Not so. Please keep reading.
That seems rather cut-and-dry, doesn't it? Good! That's how the system is supposed to work. As long as you keep things strictly defined, it's fairly simple.
Now, on to the part that will make you s@%% yourself...
As I said earlier, Good-Evil is based off of immediacy and should be taken in a vacuum, however, the axis of Law and Chaos is based off of consistency and intent. Therefore, it requires every action taken be measured with respect to actions taken and patterns followed in the past.
the Law-Chaos axis...
Law: A Lawful action is one that is done with intentional consistency with regards to the past. For this reason, an action that is following any specific code or pattern of actions is a Lawful action.
Chaos: A Chaotic action is one that is done with intentional inconsistency with regard to the past. This means that in order to be Chaotic, you have to actively oppose the concept of structure and/or code.
NEUTRAL: A Neutral action is one that is done without any intent with regard to consistency. This means that a Neutral action is one that does not intentionally follow or break a code. If no weight whatsoever is given to actions of the past, and the only interest is focused upon the present condition, then the action is Neutral (with regards to Law/Chaos).
Your ideas make it seem as if any minor action would change my alignment. That sounds like a hassle.
Not necessarily. Something to keep in mind is that it is a long-held stance in every D&D universe (and the real world) that no living organism is 100% flawless, and therefore any particular person is not expected to be 100% one alignment. Still, it's safe to assume that the alignment we attribute ourselves to, we maintain for roughly 90% of the time, which makes it more intuitive to just claim ourselves as predominantly one alignment. This is how alignment-claiming has always worked. In other words, I'm not suggesting that you make your system more sensitive to changes in alignment, I'm just telling you how you're supposed to define the alignments. You can still be Lawful Good and occasionally slip up, just like always. Just don't do it frequently.
I'm not clear on what you mean by "with regard to the past."
Okay, let me take a very simple example. Let's take the sequence of Neutral actions that start off your day every day. This will show you that what is considered Law and Chaos is defined by the patterns that you create for yourself.
For person X (may have OCD): You wake up every morning, brush your teeth, take a shower, eat breakfast, brush your teeth again, get dressed (you live alone and spend most of your time nude), and go to work. This is your daily routine every day. Then, one day, you wake up, brush your teeth, and instead of taking your shower at that moment, you eat breakfast, then shower. Eating breakfast when you did so would be considered a Chaotic action, because you intentionally did not follow your usual pattern.
For person Y: Things are measured on a much larger scale. Your "morning routine" is variable, but still includes all of the same things, just in no particular order. As long as you perform all of these actions, you're acting Lawfully because you never defined a specific order. The same rules apply, though--if you have always taken Route 1 to work every day, then take Route 2 one day, taking Route 2 was a Chaotic action.
But, RTTLP, by your logic, a raving lunatic would be True Neutral, not Chaotic Neutral!
Yes. Assuming that your raving lunatic has no regard for his actions but is acting solely on impulse, he is True Neutral, just like an NPC.
Honestly, a PC can't be a raving lunatic. If there is no rhyme or reason to your actions, then you're really just player-controlling an NPC instead of DM-controlling it.
I break my code frequently, and on purpose, but I still have the code! That makes me Neutral.
No it doesn't. It makes you Chaotic and Stupid. If you intentionally break a code, then you are clearly acting with intent to not follow the code and do this on a regular basis. Moreover, if you frequently break your code, you don't actually have a code, so do the world a favor and be silent.
I strive to maintain the balance between Good and Evil all the time. That makes me True Neutral!
No. You are Lawful Neutral. You are following a consistent pattern of doing one good action, then doing one evil one. Or however you're doing it, you're following a strict personal code that involves knowingly performing both Good and Evil acts. Since you follow this pattern consistently, you are Lawful.
This system makes it very hard to play as one of the 4-corner alignments!
Yes. Yes it does. But let's face it... Neutral X is still the most common alignment, and it always will be because--generally speaking--it is usually in one's best interest to not adhere to any particular mode of action, whether it be Chaotic or Lawful. This will always be the case. What I have said here won't make the 4 corners more or less common.
I only use alignments for mechanics anyway, not roleplaying, so none of this has anything to do with me.
...Why are you here? Get out of my castle.
So I've read all of this, and you seem to be suggesting that Lawful/Chaotic have no direct correlation with Good/Evil!?
That is correct! They are on two separate dimensions of the array, and are completely independent of each other. One is determined on the spot, by the value of the action taken, and the other (Law/Chaos) is determined based on the character's previous action, whether they be Good or Evil.
So what were you saying about tendencies?
It's simple. If you have 'tendencies,' then you're Chaotic. You actively do not do the same thing every time, but you do prefer one over the other when given a clear-cut option. Neutral implies you do not care about patterns or codes, so tendencies cannot exist.
All that said, I will wrap up with a quick description of what the alignments ACTUALLY mean.
Lawful Good: Makes a strong effort to adhere to some code, written or unwritten, of generally-accepted Good actions.
Neutral Good: Works towards accomplishing Good goals with no regards to how the are accomplished, insomuch that Evil is not being committed by doing so.
Chaotic Good: Works towards accomplishing Good goals while striving to remain unpredictable due to not following any particular code or pattern. In some cases, this lack of predictability can serve to make the person to not seem like they are working towards Good (they may actively be hiding their Good intentions).
Lawful Neutral: Adheres to a strict code, written or unwritten, or pattern regardless of the moral implications.
True Neutral: Acts without regards to others or previous events. May just be meandering through daily life, or acting solely upon instinct and external stimuli.
Chaotic Neutral: Acts to promote or follow Chaos for the sake of Chaos. You intentionally do not follow any code or pattern, and act with complete disregard for Good or Evil.
Lawful Evil: You perform Evil actions intentionally and consistently so. You may be working towards your own gain at the expense of others, or enforcing some creed of Evil upon the world.
Neutral Evil: You perform Evil actions for the sake of performing Evil, with no regard towards patterns or codes. If you see a beggar begging for money, you may kill him just to be Evil.
Chaotic Evil: You perform Evil actions for the sake of performing Evil, but unpredictably so. One day you may stab a beggar as you walk down the street, but on the next day you may only threaten to stab one, but then not do it. Then, the beggar would die from the bite of the poisonous insect you subtly released into his clothing during the confrontation.
TL;DR Jump off a cliff. Either read it or don't post in this thread. If you want to take part in a discussion, then take part. If you don't, then stay out of my castle.