Hi everyone, this is my first post here, but I've looked around a bit and it seems like a nice place :)"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Obi-Dan-Kenobi
Oh CRAP! guys I think he's on to us!
Quick! hide the cocaine and rocket launchers!
Palidins use non violent means against evil creatures that can be redeemed once they have been shown the error of there ways. This tends to exclude very dangerous creatures such as giants that ,while they can be redeemed technically, it is highly unlikely and not feasible to risk their escape to do further harm.
However they are unmerciful confronting fiends or other creatures that are unchangably abominable. This is hard to accept as good because in the real world it is hard if not impossible to fully justify the use of violence. However in D&D these palidins are not beating up whoever they want they are destroying a force of pure evil made manifest.
As a variant to the alignment quandry I offer this. For any redeemable creature, one without an aura of evil or one that has no set or suggested evil alignment, detect good does work but the caster knows their darkness is weak and alterable, thus a palidin would not skewer them on the spot. Furthermore against these creatures effects against evil creatures do affect then but in less dramatic ways. If the effect deals damage the damage dealt is non-leathal (including a paladins smite, this way the class is not heavily hindered). If the effect is death the target falls into a coma like state that can be removed with a break enchantment or similar spell, If it is an affliction such as blindness the duration is halved and never permanent. If it gives a bonus to the targets AC or spell resistance the bonus is halved and the SR is halved. I only bothered to write good effects versus evil creatures but I would use the same for all alignments.
By the way I just thought of this as I was writing the first part of the post so I have not playtested or thought in depth about anything I just wrote. Feel free to shoot it down.
I like that little suggestion sexi golem. If anyone play tests it please post your comments.
If it is an affliction such as blindness the duration is halved and never permanent.
Blindness and other such non-lethal curses seem to me to be perfect punishments inflicted by the good gods on those who are evil but redeemable, and don't need a time limit. If the creature truly repents, surely a good-hearted cleric will heal its blindness, lift its curse and thus manifest the just but merciful nature of his deity? (OK some of the clerics in the good church are like Jonah and begrudge the Babylonians their repentance, but there are also Elijahs out there who cure the penitent enemy generals of leprosy.)
|
QUOTE="Luke Fleeman"] You're probably getting at something here.
The USA is known for doing what it perceives as good with its military. Our culture seems to have a belief in good being achived through violence, as if that justifies it. Sometimes, I think it does. I am American, though.
Be careful Luke, people make take your words out of context and be offended due to limited views of subject matter that should be viewed from an open-minded POV. All (most)americans believe that they are right because the government tells them that they are. People have, historically, died due to one corrupted leader's view on what was right. Vietnam is a good example of this. Many brave men died doing something that they should never of been asked to do. Most of them still believe that there was Some Great Purpose to their sacrifice, besides political gain, and I respect their individual heroism. Hitler was told that the best way to unify his country behind his rule was to invent an evil, then wage war against that evil(simplified version). Our outlooks are always going to be colored by our interpretation of actions commited by various governmental and clerical orders.
I believe that if you treat everyone with some respect and would immediately jump up to help when someone yells "Help!", then you are a good person. It doesn't matter what views you have, if you feel the need to help someone in dire need then you are a good person regardless of race, creed, or station. If you worry more about the damage you may suffer for helping someone then you are neutral. If you say "F them, they should've been more careful." then you are an evil person.
This is entirely my opinion, if it offends then sorry. Again.
FH
|
|
QUOTE="Luke Fleeman"] You're probably getting at something here.
The USA is known for doing what it perceives as good with its military. Our culture seems to have a belief in good being achived through violence, as if that justifies it. Sometimes, I think it does. I am American, though.
Be careful Luke, people make take your words out of context and be offended due to limited views of subject matter that should be viewed from an open-minded POV. All (most)americans believe that they are right because the government tells them that they are. People have, historically, died due to one corrupted leader's view on what was right. Vietnam is a good example of this. Many brave men died doing something that they should never of been asked to do. Most of them still believe that there was Some Great Purpose to their sacrifice, besides political gain, and I respect their individual heroism. Hitler was told that the best way to unify his country behind his rule was to invent an evil, then wage war against that evil(simplified version). Our outlooks are always going to be colored by our interpretation of actions commited by various governmental and clerical orders.
I believe that if you treat everyone with some respect and would immediately jump up to help when someone yells "Help!", then you are a good person. It doesn't matter what views you have, if you feel the need to help someone in dire need then you are a good person regardless of race, creed, or station. If you worry more about the damage you may suffer for helping someone then you are neutral. If you say "F them, they should've been more careful." then you are an evil person.
This is entirely my opinion, if it offends then sorry. Again.FH
I think the interesting point is something I touched on myself earlier, but didn't necessarily follow through it's conclusion (so thank to those who pointed it out): where good and evil have a metaphysical reality, and even a physical reality with fiends, evil clerics and so on, the elimination of IRREDEEMABLE evil is probably a good act, in the terms of good also having a reality you can define in the same way. It becomes a bit trickier with people who are a bit nasty, maybe detect as evil, but are not mass murderers of traffickers with demons and devils - that's the nuanced decision that makes playing a paladin (in the right hands) interesting.
By the way, as the kicker-offer of the American=violent thread, please note that I don't want to paint Americans as a bunch of psychos. It was more a question of whether American culture has a thread within it that sees violence as a means to a good end, maybe arising from the Revolution, Civil War and frontier spirit. Obviously, it's more subtle than that, but maybe as an outsider from a slightly different culture I did wonder if there was something in that. Thanks for the measured replies - very interesting.
If it is an affliction such as blindness the duration is halved and never permanent.Blindness and other such non-lethal curses seem to me to be perfect punishments inflicted by the good gods on those who are evil but redeemable, and don't need a time limit. If the creature truly repents, surely a good-hearted cleric will heal its blindness, lift its curse and thus manifest the just but merciful nature of his deity? (OK some of the clerics in the good church are like Jonah and begrudge the Babylonians their repentance, but there are also Elijahs out there who cure the penitent enemy generals of leprosy.)
Yeah that sounds better. As I said there was not a lot of deep thinking there so thanks.
But, Sexi, you then have to make on the spot calls about what is redeemable and what isnt. Is the evil archmage redeemable? Well, he's not a true incarnation of evil like a demon, so technically, yes... so do alignment spells work less on him? I should hope not, or the party's cleric just got neutered.
The alignment system is there for a reason, and it's deeply entrenched in the game. Chaning it, or removing it, has serious game repurcussions that should be thought over long and hard. And, generally, in my experience, if it requires a great deal of long, hard thought, it's typically not worth it. Just leave the rules as they are and spare us all another house rule of ambiguous balance (no offense to anyone).
Uhmm.... if the alignment system is being ignored, that's bad roleplaying, not a problem with the system. The characters act good, therefore are labeled good, not the other way around. The evil wizard is evil because he does evil things, not just because the DM labelled him as such. If he went around donating to charity out of the goodness of his heart, he wouldn't be evil, would he?
Look at the examples in the PHB. Tordek, the iconic dwarf fighter, is LG, but also has a greedy streak beneath the surface, and might be convinced to steal once and a while in very minor ways. Is he still LG? Yes. Is stealing often an evil act? Yes. But, Tordek has so many other good and orderly qualities that he remains LG in the eyes of the universe itself.
I view alignment as a primordial force of the D&D cosmos that transcends the gods themselves. The gods don't set the rules for alignments, but are ascribed their alignments by their actions, just as any other creature.
Also, alignment isn't as dramatic as some people think. Does a Chaotic ethic mean that elves can never come up with any plans? Not at all. However, they prefer personal freedom of choice and rarely enfore laws in a strict written way; instead they deal with issues on a case-by-case basis. They also lack many lawful tendancies, therefore, they are left in the chaotic range, and not lawful or neutral.
A wizard would not be able to be chaotic at all if alignments were as dramatic as some seem to percieve them. He'd never stop long enough to learn a single spell! Rather, he can start experiements here and there, and work on them for years, but never see them through to completion, and possibly be untrsutworthy when it came to keeping promises or some such thing, and therefore be chaotic.
This is leaning more and more towards the rant thread, but I just get tired of people saying the alignment system is broken, when it isn't. One simply has to first realize that we're dealing with a medium in which good and evil ARE forces, just like thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism. As someone near the top of this thread said, alignment isn't a straight jacket.
So the paladin can cast Detect Evil and reveals that the NPC is a ne'er do-well. So, what? That's a basic assumption in the D&D world, that they can do this. Ever seen Frailty? Why do you think that certain levels of given alignments can stun casters of Detect spells? Levels of evil are built into the game. A faint aura probably is just a "bad vibe" as stated before, while the stronger ones could convey scenes of the sins the target has commited, like in the aforementioned movie.
Yes, it's my opinion, and thus impossible to emperically prove, but I really, really don't think the alignment system has any flaw large enough to cause so much consternation. Provided it's used in the context is was intended, it works fine. If you use it out of that context, no wonrder you have problems with it. That's like using a lawn mower to cut your hair.
Well; as someone who has been playing and GMing for as long as most games have existed I can say that I like alignments. I can also see that some people are making the same mistakes I have seen others make.
I will attempt to explain this as best as I can: We all have real alignments as real people HOWEVER we do not have a single alignment...Example--Generally speaking a Police Officer is of Good Alignment--Or as Palladium puts it 'Principled'. That's their job, however there are some circumstances where this does not apply and other more grey alignments fit the bill.
Now in game let us take a look at the Ranger; That person starts out life real alignment confused...They have an afinity for nature and as such have a lawful bent. That same person gets favored enemies, most people do not love their enemies and their feelings for them are determined by that enemies actions...In this case that same Ranger ALSO has an alignment of chaotic or evil when it comes to their favored enemies.
So in essense; to truely enjoy and understand the alignment scheme of any game a GM must ask the tough question--not so much directly but by creating the scenario and running the gamers through them and seeing how the characters respond to--Threats to their friends and family, threats to their financial status, threats to their reputations, and so on...The outcome of all this is that the GM assigns the alignments based on circumstances and character responses.
Do I think alignment neccesary in a game? No. I have played in many fun games, where a GM does not use an alignment scheme.
Do I think the D&D alignment system make a D&D game fun? Oh! Hell yes. With out it there is no use for spells such as align weapon, protection vs Law, etc, as well as special abilities like smite good.
Things such as Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are presented as real forces which effect the world and manifest in physical precence in such beings as devils devas and deities. The inherent contrast of morals and ethics in the "Great Wheel" cosmology of the D&D universe is just ripe with conflict. It is in the conflict that drama arises and in drama is where a great story can be found.
As much as I love the tactical side of gaming it is the story telling which I enjoy most of all.
You make some good points Saern, they were thoughtful and made me consider more closely what I'm doing. I have made some responses. Oh and I would just like to point out that I never said the alignment system was broken and should be removed, only that I don't think it is essential to a good game of D&D, and it doesn't fit my game in particular.
The alignment system is there for a reason, and it's deeply entrenched in the game. Chaning it, or removing it, has serious game repurcussions that should be thought over long and hard. And, generally, in my experience, if it requires a great deal of long, hard thought, it's typically not worth it. Just leave the rules as they are and spare us all another house rule of ambiguous balance (no offense to anyone).
None taken :) But I don't think the repercussions are that serious. So we removed paladins, big deal, no one liked them anyway. Maybe it's just that my players are evil (heh heh heh)
Uhmm.... if the alignment system is being ignored, that's bad roleplaying, not a problem with the system. The characters act good, therefore are labeled good, not the other way around. The evil wizard is evil because he does evil things, not just because the DM labelled him as such. If he went around donating to charity out of the goodness of his heart, he wouldn't be evil, would he?
I agree to an extent, but the thing is that alignment in D&D is not just a system of classifying behaviour. What would be the point of that? It's an assumption that the classifications have some sort of objective reality. This creates a question; Is a person Evil because of his actions or are his actions a result of his being Evil?
One simply has to first realize that we're dealing with a medium in which good and evil ARE forces, just like thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism. As someone near the top of this thread said, alignment isn't a straight jacket.
So the paladin can cast Detect Evil and reveals that the NPC is a ne'er do-well. So, what? That's a basic assumption in the D&D world, that they can do this.
It's all about suspension of disbelief and what your group finds to be tolerable in this regard. My players want to roleplay interesting characters in a believable fantasy world. They want to feel as if these are real people who happen to live in a world with magic and monsters. They are willing to accept magic, but objective good and evil strikes them as simplistic and ruins their suspension of disbelief. I mean let's face it, a traditional paladin is pretty much a fairy tale prince. That's fine if you are adventuring in a simplistic epic setting, but rings false in a setting where people are supposed to have realistic motivations. Unless you assume that all paladins have serious psychological or trauma issues that have led them to their strange hero complex.
I mean think about it, why would a real person join an order of holy knights? Perhaps they are a wide-eyed kid who truly believes such people are the shining paragons of virtue all of the stories say. In this case their innocence would be pretty well beaten out of them the first time they came face to face with a real enemy and/or had to kill someone. Or perharps they are someone who enjoys fighting and is good at it. People usually do what they are good at. In that case they are pretty much a mercenary who happens to work for a church. Though that doesn't mean they aren't a good person, it doesn't make them holy either. Maybe they were forced into it by a traumatic event, in which case they are doing it for vengeance, which isn't very good. Or maybe they truly are a religious zealot who thinks death is the only fitting punishment for those who oppose their church, and we all know that there's nothing really holy or gentle about someone like that. To me an order of paladins would contain people with all of these various motivations to different degrees and in various combinations, as well as people who are simply power hungry and think being a member of the order will give them power, and people who are doing it because their parents did. What you wouldn't find is a kind, humble and gentle soul who is for some reason following a vocation to kill, and doing so without losing their innocence. Why would a kind and gentle person choose to be a warrior? They wouldn't have it in them. Surely they would become a healer or pastor?
The only way a paladin can be the way the rules intend them to be that I can see is if they are not realistic, they are a cardboard archetype of the sort of person who doesn't exist outside of legends and heroic tales. I could be wrong. But in my campiagn when we made everyone have real motivations we had to can the paladin or face huge inconsistencies about the nature of good and evil. Note that the paladin is the only character like this. Every other class can be played "epic good vs. evil" or "realistic motivation" and still work fine.
I really, really don't think the alignment system has any flaw large enough to cause so much consternation. Provided it's used in the context is was intended, it works fine. If you use it out of that context, no wonrder you have problems with it. That's like using a lawn mower to cut your hair.
Agreed. But I think the context for which it was intended was epic fantasy heavily influenced by mythology. That's not the sort of game I'm playing. I'm still playing a fantasy game, but one I suppose is more like a science fiction, where the characters are realistic people (human or otherwise) in a fantastic setting. I also think this is a fairly common approach to the game.
I'm in the camp that real people are not that easy to slot into an actual alignment - people can be very hard to pigeon hole.
I'm a well trained and hard nosed cop - I've spent most of my 45 odd years on the beat and I think the community needs me as I walk tough streets. I've turned down a couple of chances to ride a desk to keep walking this beat and I was once stabbed pretty badly when I stepped between a high flying petty drug dealer and some stupid kid of no more then 13 who had been dumb enough to try and steal the guys money.
I have a problem - this job is stressful and maybe I've seen just a bit to much of the mean streets. The stress of the job has led me to drink a little more then is prudent. I drink a couple of times a week and when drink I can snap --- its not that common for me to snap as she knows, she bing my wife Heather, to walk on eggs if I've been drinking ... but sometimes Heather says something that leads to a blow up - and then she gets it.
Most of the time she does not end up in the hospital but there have been the odd occasion were I broke bones. Fortunately in the few cases were a brother cop was called everything was smoothed over except for two occasions were it was a young gun who was looking for trouble. Fortunately on both those occasions the prosicution dropped the charges when Heather maintained to anyone who would listen that she had just hurt herself - its one of the things I love most about her - she's very loyal.
One of these days I really got to see a shrink about this drinking problem - but its tough when you walk the beat. Maybe I'll reconsider that offer of riding a desk again when I come up for a performance review in four months or so.
What Alignment am I.
Director of Narrative
|
Have any of you guys who are having this alignment discussion ever used the alignment test thingy on the WotC site? I made all of my characters in my current game go through it as their character and everyone of them ended up with their correct alignment ( even the CN guy ). I've done it for myself as myself and ended up NG. May not be perfect, but it's a nice thing to play with.
What Alignment am I.Is this hypothetical?
Yes - actually I'm not married, and have never been a cop - hard nosed or otherwise.
I'm in the camp that real people are not that easy to slot into an actual alignment - people can be very hard to pigeon hole.
I'm a well trained and hard nosed cop - I've spent most of my 45 odd years on the beat and I think the community needs me as I walk tough streets. I've turned down a couple of chances to ride a desk to keep walking this beat and I was once stabbed pretty badly when I stepped between a high flying petty drug dealer and some stupid kid of no more then 13 who had been dumb enough to try and steal the guys money.
I have a problem - this job is stressful and maybe I've seen just a bit to much of the mean streets. The stress of the job has led me to drink a little more then is prudent. I drink a couple of times a week and when drink I can snap --- its not that common for me to snap as she knows, she bing my wife Heather, to walk on eggs if I've been drinking ... but sometimes Heather says something that leads to a blow up - and then she gets it.
Most of the time she does not end up in the hospital but there have been the odd occasion were I broke bones. Fortunately in the few cases were a brother cop was called everything was smoothed over except for two occasions were it was a young gun who was looking for trouble. Fortunately on both those occasions the prosicution dropped the charges when Heather maintained to anyone who would listen that she had just hurt herself - its one of the things I love most about her - she's very loyal.
One of these days I really got to see a shrink about this drinking problem - but its tough when you walk the beat. Maybe I'll reconsider that offer of riding a desk again when I come up for a performance review in four months or so.
What Alignment am I.
I'd say you're a Lawful Good person with an alcohol addiction. Face it; when we drink, we're not ourselves and rationality goes out the window.
I really hope that was just a story Jeremy.
Ultradan
I'd say neutral or lawful neutral. A good person might get upset this might happen once or twice. But when It happens mulitple times, seemingly pretty often, and you end up hospitalizing someone you love (I use that term lightly in this situation) I do not see that as a good person. A Good person in my book would have taken drastic steps to change after the fist incident and would have stopped well before breaking bones. His life seems to suggest a lawful nature but his manipulation of the law (asking his wife to lie and averting the justice system with his authority as a policeman) seems to suggest a more neutral side. From what Jeremy lists alone I would say lawful neutral but I might expect a person like this to circumvent the law in other conveinient matters and if thats the case I say neutral.
just my opinion
|
|
I would say true neutral. Yes, he is a police officer but he is bend the law for his own good. He may know and enforce the "laws" but only when it suits his purpose. Hurting people you love repeatedly is not a good act, although I wouldn't quite say he is evil, yet. If he takes it too far and "accidently" kills her or continues the behavior for a long period of time then I would say neutral/evil is his alignment. I pray that this is only a hypothetical situation. If not, then Jeremy you need to seek help for whoever you may be talking about. Abusing a loved one may look like it only hurts by the injuries, but the real damage is the mental suffering and damage to self-esteem that is rendered by the physical abuse. A bone heals fairly quickly, but a mind can be torn apart for the rest of someone's life due to abuse. Sorry if I sound "preachy".
FH
Hey,
It seems to me like alignment serves two primary roles: on the one hand it provides a mechanical way of dealing with moral conflict (detect evil, smite evil), and on the other hand alignments are a way of conveying information about a character and providing a guide for role playing (i.e., you can make some assumptions about a character that has been declared Lawful Good and you have some sense of how the character will behave in some situations).
The OP provided a revised mechanic for dealing with moral conflict: detect evil, protection from evil, smite evil, etc., apply only to outsiders and sometimes the undead, but not to mere mortals. Some claim that this weakens clerics and paladins and this is true. However, clerics can handle a little weakening, and paladins could be given a bonus feat at 3rd level and every 5th thereafter, or some other such fix, to make up for it. Nobody ever said that being a virtuous paladin should be easy.
I think that there are good flavor reasons for this mechanical change: it creates a strong distinction between us mere mortal dwellers of the material plane and other-wordly creatures: fiends, angels, etc. Whereas mortal lives are governed by a kind of freedom and the possibility of redemption, outsiders are supposed to be, by thier very nature, good or evil. I think that this makes mortal characters easier to identify with and makes the difference between the material plane and other planes more interesting. The mechanical change also provides lots of story possibilites, as has been mentioned, i.e., a fiend's need for human servants.
When it comes to conveying information about a character, and serving as a guide to roleplay, I'm not sure that the alignment system works well, largely because some parts of it just don't make sense, at least not to me. Someone who is chaotic good is supposed to prize freedom about all else, and be opposed to law, but isn't it the case that freedoms are best protected when they are protected by law, like in the bill of rights? Are chaotic good characters supposed to be anarchists that think that everything will turn out for the best if every one is free to choose? I don't want to think that all chaotic good characters are stupid, but I don't know what else to say about their amazing ability to ignore the fact that anarchies don't transform into utopias, quite the opposite in fact.
And what's with law and chaos as opposing cosmic forces anyhow? What does that even mean? Chaos theory is actually very law governed, and there are laws about entropy too.
There's also the fact that many of the alignment categories are really broad (and at the same time very narrow) and alignments themselves don't allow a lot of room for human complication and complexity.
I think that there are better ways of conveying information about characters and guiding role play. I get my players to answer two questions on behalf of their characters: 1) What things are of value to your character? 2)How important is loyalty to your character, and to whom is your character loyal?
A few sentences suffices to give both me and the players a sense of who their character is and what things will motivate their character, which ultimately leads to easier adventure planning and a better insertion of the character into the world. That's how I do it, and i'm sure that there are other ways of accomplishing the same thing that work better than the nine standard alignments.
You can still have games where morality is important and there are moral consequences to characaters' actions without using a simple good vs. evil axis and the even more bizarre law vs. chaos axis, so no, alignments aren't necessary.
Action determines alignment for mortals, alignment determines actions for outsiders.
Yes, a paladin can be extremely holy and still good. He's not out to kill- he's out to protect. The healer won't do you any good if he can't stop that monster from killing you first, or from killing him. There have to be defenders of goodness. Would he become jaded? Yes. Does that break his alignment? No. Look at the number of paladins in fantasy literature who started taking on the traits you described. Most of them became blackguards, or whatever variant the given medium has for fallen holy warriors.
I've done quite a bit of self-analysis and soul-searching, and I find that I prize, and consider myself to have, the NG alignment. Is everything I've done good? No. I've had many moments of weakness, and even done things that D&D would classify as minor evils. But it's what I feel in my heart, it's what I hold dear and value. It's what I aspire to be. I'm a perfectly rounded individual, and giving myself an alignment is not pigeon-holing.
Jeremy, you forgot one important aspect in your tale: mindest. How do you view your work? What are your goals, values, rolemodels, etc? Intent and what's at heart is a huge part of the context of an alignment. If you hold the laws you work to enforce as important and your devotion to them to be a valuable service to society, not because it's you doing it, but just because you know SOMEONE is doing it and doing it well (provided you do do it well), then you are Lawful Neutral. If you do it just to get an income, you're true Neutral. If you have no "altruistic" motives and feel no remorse for attacking your wife in that state and feel no pity for those who you harm, either in the line or duty or on your own time, you're Lawful Evil (if you follow the lawful guidlines above) or Neutral Evil (if you don't). If you actually have no regard for the laws whatsoever and use them to abuse your power, but without much planning or methodical nature, make that Chaotic. If you abuse your power, but put a lot of time and planning into how to do it within the system of laws allowed, your Lawful again.
I'm very glad to hear that was all hypothetical.
Alcibyades, no offense, but how in the world do you expect that level of physics to hold up in D&D, where the basic ecosystem is quite impossible? And, once again, you're making the alignments too dramatic. Yes, the chaotic person could be an anarchist, but one who cares for his fellow people and would seek to help them (good) or would not consider harming them without good reason (neutral), or feels that rules are actually just a way for the powerful to abuse the weak, in which case he would not be chaotic because of passive views, but due to actively railing against all forms of laws in general, even if he activities by themselves would make him Neutral (if his activities by themselves would make him Lawful, then his true alignment is Neutral, not Chaotic, due to his opposition of laws, unless he's deluding himself, in which case he could still be lawful and hate laws).
Or, this person could feel that any form of law merely constrains his personal potential, and he will do anything he needs to in order to accomplish his goals, with no compassion for anyone else, or perhaps even an enjoyment of their suffering (Evil).
Sound complicated? Yep, it is. So are people, and the alignment system allows for that. Kahoolin, I respect that your game has been enhanced by the elimination of mortal alignments, but for everyone else out there that is just having problems with it because they don't see it covering everything, please think it through before complaining about it. It really is an extremely viable system, and, given a common cultural background, can be argued to be one of the most "realistic" features of the game, as it's something that we can actually relate to. Start thinking to yourself about various people you see and meet- friends, family members, TV stars, etc., and profiling their alignments to yourslef. It's really not that hard.
Or maybe I just have a high Wisdom score. :P Don't worry, I'm not a munchkin, because my Strength SUCKS!
|
Director of Narrative
|
What Alignment am I.
I'd say the guy started off LG (wanting to be a cop and help his community) then slipped into the typical "just my job scenario" arriving at LN. His dark tendencies, which actually manifested themselves with the abuse, slide him towards LE. The line that really stood out to me to cement that tendency was that he 'loved' her the most because she was loyal. Using her 'loyalty' (and his powerful system of comrades)to his advantage to avoid the responsibility of his negative actions.
|
|
I'd say you're a Lawful Good person with an alcohol addiction. Face it; when we drink, we're not ourselves and rationality goes out the window.I really hope that was just a story Jeremy.
Ultradan
Sorry Ultradan, Addiction or not people are still responsible for their actions and make decisions to continue to do evil. I had 2 addictions in my life, one was smoking, one was coke (not in a can either). I made a decision to remove them from my life. If someone refuses to make a decision, that is a decision. A decision not to do good that results in an evil act, is an evil decision and therefore an evil act. I hate that people get arrested for drowning their children "accidentally" and use the " I was on crack, so its not my fault!" line, or the "I have a problem." line.
A good person will repair any damage that an addiction has caused to themselves and the people around them, a bad person uses an addiction as an excuse for an action.as always IMO
FH
I am a strong supporter of the alignment system. As a HUGE planescape fan though it's a little more difficult to drop it. I've had many discussions about alignment and have discovered most of them can be explained away simply as; 'alignment is different from personality'.
Great thread!
Peace,
tfad
Sorry Ultradan, Addiction or not people are still responsible for their actions and make decisions to continue to do evil. I had 2 addictions in my life, one was smoking, one was coke (not in a can either). I made a decision to remove them from my life. If someone refuses to make a decision, that is a decision. A decision not to do good that results in an evil act, is an evil decision and therefore an evil act. I hate that people get arrested for drowning their children "accidentally" and use the " I was on crack, so its not my fault!" line, or the "I have a problem." line.
A good person will repair any damage that an addiction has caused to themselves and the people around them, a bad person uses an addiction as an excuse for an action.as always IMO
FH
You had addictions. You were not evil, you were sick. The drugs prohibited you from making good decisions. But, with a lot of pain and effort, you managed to beat them. Good for you man. Many are not so strong.
Mind you, that I agree with what you say, that someone who kills their children while on crack should indeed be put away. Drugged or not, you are always responsible for your actions.
Ultradan
Alcibyades, no offense, but how in the world do you expect that level of physics to hold up in D&D, where the basic ecosystem is quite impossible? And, once again, you're making the alignments too dramatic.
No offense taken,
Law and chaos, good and evil, seem to be real (and dramatic) forces active in the world, at least if you play with the great wheel cosmology, so I didn't think that the comparison with physics was that crazy. (So much the worse for the Great Wheel) I was really just trying to cash out what law and chaos might mean, as I find them to be confusing.
Yes, the chaotic person could be an anarchist, but one who cares for his fellow people and would seek to help them (good) or would not consider harming them without good reason (neutral), or feels that rules are actually just a way for the powerful to abuse the weak, in which case he would not be chaotic because of passive views, but due to actively railing against all forms of laws in general, even if he activities by themselves would make him Neutral (if his activities by themselves would make him Lawful, then his true alignment is Neutral, not Chaotic, due to his opposition of laws, unless he's deluding himself, in which case he could still be lawful and hate laws).Or, this person could feel that any form of law merely constrains his personal potential, and he will do anything he needs to in order to accomplish his goals, with no compassion for anyone else, or perhaps even an enjoyment of their suffering (Evil).
Sound complicated?
Two things: Specifically regarding Chaotic Good. I don't really see how a person that examines all the evidence can really be chaotic good, if being chaotic good is being opposed to all laws (i.e., being an anarchist) and really care about other people. There's just way too much historical and empirical evidence that shows that anarchies are not good for the public good. It seems to me like you have to either cling to your chaotic good principles in the face of contrary evidence (which is a kind of moral failing or just being stupid) or give up the anarchist position.
While I certainly agree that the alignment system can be confusing, as can real people, I am not so sure that they are confusing in ways that map onto each other. People are complicated because they delude themselves, because they have moments of weakness, because they try to do the right thing and fail, because they repent for doing the wrong thing and for many other reasons as well. Alignments are complicated because they involve relations to abstract things like Laws, as your example clearly shows. Consider the case of neutral on the law-chaos axis: I think you say that someone who says that they are chaotic, but whose actions are really lawful, is really neutral. Such a person would be neutral by default. But surely there are other ways of being neutral: some one who is pragmatic about laws might be neutral, as might someone who has no opinion about them at all. In this way, Neutral is too broad a category, as there are too many ways of being neutral that have little to do with each other. I think that this is true for most of the alignment categories. All that I am saying, is that if alignments are supposed to provide a guide to roleplaying and convey information about a character there are better ways of doing just that.
Cheers,
Most people aren't sociology majors, however, and thus don't pour over the facts. Intent and actions are equally important, and thus without knowledge of what can come from anarchy, the person's actions do not shift him from a good alignment. See animals, who are True Neutral simply because they have no concept of good, evil, law, and chaos.
This could be countered by the argument of all the various literary, game, and movie characters who think they were doing good things, but were clearly evil. Well, those people may not have actually been evil, but Neutral. Their good intent was dragged down by their evil actions, leaving them Neutral. If the character in question performed no other good acts, the deeds they were contemplating/carrying out were heinous enough, or his intent was vastly, vastly distorted, or possibly truly motived by self-gain and the person had just deluded themselves into thinking they were doing good, then they would slip into being fully Evil.
Back to the CG person, he's not actually likely to be an anarchist, though he could be an ignorant one. More likely, and anarchist is N, CN, or CE, and possibly even NG or NE if they are an anarchist due to the current regime convincing them of the fallability of order, though their hearts and actions aren't truly set on Chaos.
The CG person is more likely one who has trouble upholding promises, completing tasks, etc., but still is a good person, as demonstrated by his appreciation of those around him and his deeds to realize that view. He could also be a "rebel", and have no problem with the existence of laws and societies that strictly adhere to them, but simply chooses that they are not for him. Think of the numerous vigilante style heroes in so many different medias. They are CG.
True Neutrality, on the other hand, is really only achieved in two or three ways. First (or first and second if you choose to count them as two separate items), is when no one aligment pulls one towards it stronger than anyother/all relavent alignments pull with equal strength and cancel each other. This is not the same as consciously choosing True Neutrality, which is the third way, and often done in attempts to seek some form of "balance."
If one is not being pushed/pulled equally in all direction, or does not actively choose True Neutrality, then they are not truly neutral. However, it does remain a fact that, in reality, most people would be considered True Neutral due to their lack of interest in pursuing an ethical abstraction (which is a lack of pull) and their multitude of actions of varying alignment that are accrued throughout life (which, more or less, push them into the center).
Finally, it is also possible to have someone on the border of True Neutrality, say, just not quite compassionite enough to qualify as good. People are dynamic, and they may very well shift back and forth across the border throughout their lives. This rarely comes into play in the game, however, considering the short time that most NPCs interact with the party, so the DM should just keep that borderline mentality in mind and play the NPC in such an ambiguous way. It is difficult for Dms to devote that much attention to detail during the game, often making characters come off somewhat static. That's not a fault of the system, however; it's merely an understandable human error.
Yes, a paladin can be extremely holy and still good. He's not out to kill- he's out to protect. The healer won't do you any good if he can't stop that monster from killing you first, or from killing him. There have to be defenders of goodness. Would he become jaded? Yes. Does that break his alignment? No.
Not to harp on the paladin thing, but what I'm getting at is that to me a good person is incapable of killing. They may do it if forced, but they certainly wouldn't choose a profession where the whole point of it was to commit acts of violence, no matter what the motivation for those acts.
Sure the healer needs to be protected, but being the defender of a good and gentle person doesn't make you good and gentle yourself. It means in fact that you are capable of performing those unpleasant but necessary acts that the good person's goodness won't allow them to. That's why in my campaign we have good and holy clerics, and orders of fighters who defend them. These fighters aren't evil, in fact many of them are as good as an ordinary person can be. But the fact that they are warriors by choice precludes them from being holy enough to perform miracles, in most cases. If they were a person pure enough to perform miracles they would be a cleric not a warrior.
It is possible to multiclass of course, which means that each paladin-like character is unique and has some sort of background reason or story as to why they are both holy and a warrior. They didn't just go to paladin school and learn Lay on Hands 101 and Advanced Smiting.
BTW I went and did that alignment test. I'm neutral good :)
I would say true neutral. Yes, he is a police officer but he is bend the law for his own good. He may know and enforce the "laws" but only when it suits his purpose. Hurting people you love repeatedly is not a good act, although I wouldn't quite say he is evil, yet. If he takes it too far and "accidently" kills her or continues the behavior for a long period of time then I would say neutral/evil is his alignment. I pray that this is only a hypothetical situation.
Almost certian that our hard nosed cop would not kill his wife accidently except in a kind of fit of jelousy if she ever left or tried to leave. Generally speaking in spousal abuse cases the abuser is very dependent upon the abused (my degree is in psychology).
Jeremy, you forgot one important aspect in your tale: mindest. How do you view your work? What are your goals, values, rolemodels, etc? Intent and what's at heart is a huge part of the context of an alignment.
The problem is that this opens up another can of worms. If alighnment is relitive then what is it relative too? Orcs see thier society as Good. It weeds out the weak and makes their entire race stronger thereby ultimatly benifiting all (remaining) Orcs.
True Neutrality, on the other hand, is really only achieved in two or three ways. First (or first and second if you choose to count them as two separate items), is when no one aligment pulls one towards it stronger than anyother/all relavent alignments pull with equal strength and cancel each other. This is not the same as consciously choosing True Neutrality, which is the third way, and often done in attempts to seek some form of "balance."
This is another thing I could never get my mind around. Who the hell seriously wanders around the land going "There is to much good in the world - I think I'll become a cheerleader for evil".
I mean what sets off this that kind of reaction? He sees one to many parents cooing at their babies and just snaps? And when he does snap whats he supposed to do? Make friends with a serial killer? Hello Mr. Ripper, I'm here to help - must maintain the balance you know."
This is another thing I could never get my mind around. Who the hell seriously wanders around the land going "There is to much good in the world - I think I'll become a cheerleader for evil".
Exactly. No-one behaves like that except for bizarre characters in over-the-top fantasy, who are villains precisely because they behave in such a cartoonishly strange way.
Plus there's the other axis of the spectrum. "Too much order here, I think I'll turn over some carts and graffiti the police station. Then I'll travel to that hippie commune and impose some rules on them, man! Go balance!"
Interestingly I just read the entry for D&D alignments on Wikipedia. It said that RPG's made outside the USA don't usually have an alignment system, so maybe it IS my Australian upbringing that makes it seem wierd to me. Something to think about.
I would also argue that someone that was neutral and decided that evil wasn't quite ascendant enough, would likely just not stop evils that would be fairly easy for them to do something about. They wouldn't get their hands dirty, but they wouldn't tell the local constablury about where the assasins guild is set up, or about the slavery ring down by the docks.
In fact this kind of not getting involved even when making a difference is just a matter of letting the authorities know about a given situation is fairly easy to find in real life.
But, Sexi, you then have to make on the spot calls about what is redeemable and what isnt. Is the evil archmage redeemable? Well, he's not a true incarnation of evil like a demon, so technically, yes... so do alignment spells work less on him? I should hope not, or the party's cleric just got neutered.
I disagree. Our current cleric, as well as all other clerics have never used many alignment based spells and they do just fine, as it has been said they are a very powerful class. And paladins are still powerful they just knock the offender unconscious rather than killing it which actually fits them more in my opinion.
Plus there is not an on the spot call. Black and white actually. To receive the full effect of the spell the creature must posses either an aura of evil, such as a blackguard or evil cleric, or must have an always evil alignment. Half fiends? yes full effect. Teiflings? no, not unless they are a blackguard or evil cleric, which may not be that rare.
chaotic good?
I always thought that Robin Hood was an example of potential CG. He has a flagrant disregard for the laws of the land (mostly b/c they are bad/evil laws), he steal (not lawful), but he does donate most of his 'earnings' to the poor and needy which is a decidely Good act.
So I suppose you could post him as either CG or NG.
I personally don't see chaotic as anarchistic, just not liking rules and acting in a random fashion that cannot be predicted with any degree of success. but then maybe that is more neutral...
igi
Robin Hood is an intersting case, but I think it shows that people are more complicated than alignments capture.
Depending on what version you are reading, Robin Hood is an outlaw, who steals from the rich to give to the poor, (probably chaotic). Except that the laws are unjust, and are being perpetrated by John the Usurper and his cronies. Robin Hood actually spends lots of time trying restore the rightful ruler of England, Richard Lion Heart, who, since Robin Hood is actually a noble, is Robin's Liege. So it's not as though Robin doesn't think that there are rules that should govern succession (!) and taxation, it's just the rules being enforced in England are unjust. Another thing to consider is that, shouldn't a character that is lawful good also be struggling against unjust laws and a pretender to the throne?
Another thing to consider is that, shouldn't a character that is lawful good also be struggling against unjust laws and a pretender to the throne?
Yes, he should. That's the good part. However, someone can also rebel against evil laws just on a whim, however they feel at the moment, and that's chaotic. Chaotic good, to be exact.
No, people don't say, "There's too much good." I suggest something called "nature" as an example. Heard of it? Good.
There are wolves. There are deer. The wolves eat the deer, and the deer population declines. Then the wolves starve and the deer have fewer predators. Now the deer population increases, and the wolves stop starving, and their population increases. See the cycle?
Now, there's a farmer. He has cows, and the wolves like the cows. So the farmer kills the wolves to stop them from eating all his cows. No the deer have no predators and multiply unchecked, consuming all the resources in their environment, and then everything starves.
Someone (We'll call these hypotheticals "Druids") must come through and kill the deer, or stop the farmer from killing the wolves, to maintain natures cycle, or "BALANCE." Apply this analogy to any part of life.
I'm sorry, and I'm not angry at anyone, but I AM frustrated that a lot of what I've said on this thread is being bent out of context or constantly misunderstood.
The only way the alignment system doesn't work is with an extreme level of philosophical nitpicking, the level of which is sufficient enough to easily be altered into a series of statements that will have one questioning one's sanity (and is thus completely unnecessary). Either that, or simply not thinking it through.
The system is fine and great. Or maybe I'm making some fundamentally erred assumption or perception somewhere. Either way, we can sit here and argue it all day, but it seems that we're treading into each other's fundamental world views, which really isn't the point of this messageboard, at least for me.
Oh, and one last thing regarding the paladin. Look, he's not choosing to take a career (at least in the definition of the class) where he plans on killing people. As was said, there are times where a good person can be forced to kill and it be justified and they remain good. When that time comes, it would be a good thing to have the training and ability to use the weapons at hand, wouldn't it?
But paladins quest! Yes, the definition allows for this, but their killing should be held in reserve for those that are pure evil, such as demons and evil priests. No one ever said a paladin can't use a nonlethal weapon the rest of the time. Now, most people don't choose to play them that way becaue it's boring, but that choice on the player's part doesn't have any bearing on D&D alignments whatsoever.
Alignment threads always seem to degenerate into a quagmire of philosophical debate that goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing. I've got no problem with debate; I love it. But I expect some gain out of it, which I have yet to achieve on an alignment thread. Thus, I'll avoid posting on them from now on.
Well I hesitate ti even post as Searn sounds angry about the whole thing and I'm not - I'm totally detached from the topic and pretty much playing all sides against the middle.
So far I've pointed out that Arcana Evolved has dropped alignment completely and presumably suffered no real ill effects from it.
On the other hand when playing by the core rules I think removing it is probably more trouble then its worth for most campaigns and use it in my game.
But if push comes to shove I'm of the opinion that Alignment really is not exactly a perfect reflection of human nature.
If someone were actually attacking me in real life, I don't think they would approach within 30 feet of me and take a swing within a six second time frame, then wait for me to either make a return attack or move sixty feet in the next six seconds (perhaps provoking an attack of opportunity) and then take their six second 'turn'.
If I'm making a drawing or painting for class, I'm fairly certain that it's more likely the time I've spent practicing coupled with preparation before making the final product and the amount of time spent on the final product that makes it pleasing to the eye, rather than some element of chance.
I'm fairly certain (and I'll have to check my character sheet on this one) that I don't possess any 'feats'.
I do not have proficiency in even one simple weapon nor any kind of armor, making me as a person inferior to a first level commoner.
I can't cast any spells by saying magical words, gesturing and expending material components, I do not derive superhuman strength from my anger, and if the gods have blessed me with supernatural resistances to disease, I'm completely unaware.
We suspend our disbelief for these things, knowing that it's a simulation. Discussion of metaphysics is fun in itself, and philosophers have been entirely incapable of agreeing on any one idea. Therefore, the simplest way to simulate a pretend person's moral outlook as a guide for their depiction in our shared fantasy is to give them a position based on a law/chaos, good/evil axis. That way, we can all spend more time arguing about just how many kobolds it would take to realistically overrun a human being or whether or not a gnome can survive indefinitely in an extradimensional space encapsulated in a magic bag provided his head is peeking out of the top.
I'd tend to agree that Robin Hood is an interesting character in terms of alignment. So long as he is an outlaw with a band of merry men fighting an unjust system he really seems CG. But presumably if King John shows up and straightens out most of the wrongs then Robin Hood has accomplished his goals and for the rest of his life he hangs out with (the no longer a Maid) Marion has children and is an upright citizen who upholds the laws of the land. So was he always LG? or maybe alignments have nothing to do with his innate nature and they are merely mutable depending on the circumstances he finds himself in.
I tend to lean toward the second interpretation - its closer to the reality of the Hard nosed Cop described above. An individual who acts out a Lawful and even Arguably good role during his day job but can at other times act out a role thats more akin to Chaotic and Evil (when he's engaged in spousal abuse). The Cop almost certainly believes deeply in the laws he has devoted his life to up keeping but he also feels that sometimes he and his fellow cops are above the law.
Its actually not that an uncommon set of circumstances in law enforcement - Cops uphold the law but they might start to bend the rules if a fellow officer is threatened and they cover each others backs when a family member - especially a teenaged child gets into smaller amounts of trouble. You don't bust a fellow officers kid for possession of pot - you just turn her over to parent officer and figure that it will all get sorted out. If the kids a complete stranger well then ones loyalty to brother or sister officer is not being tested and the law can take its course.
Pretty much my opinion is that at any given point in our lives we fulfill a large number of different roles and we may have somewhat different alignments during the course of any of those roles depending on the demands of the circumstances our own ethics and values and what is perceived as being potentially gained or lost by different behaviors in those individual circumstances.
Were I think the Alignment system tends to break down mainly is that it attempts to quantify these differing aspects of our lives and then distill them down to a single point.
The end result though tends to a kind of regression toward the mean - I'm law abiding at work but its canceled out by the wild parties I engage in during my time off. I'm a good person to my friends and family but in trying to be good to my family maybe I can be an a%&+~!# to my co-workers since I really want to get that promotion at work and move ahead.
In the end on is trying to quantify the value of 'being a good family man' versus 'being good to fellow workers as my fellow human beings'. On top of this ones adding or deducting points based on things like willingness to do something like contribute to charity. Finally even if one can some how figure out what the formula is and apply the points we just end up stumbling over personal perceptions.
I mean is giving to street beggars qualify as charity? Is it better then, equal to, or less beneficial, then giving the same amount of money to a hospitals funding drive? How much does the temperature outside effect this act?
I'm betting that ones views on the issue vary widely and are built upon notions of each individuals perception of street beggars. If you view them as poor unfortunates who have been dispossessed by the vagueries of life, society and the capitalist system you lean one way. On the other hand if one might have a strong belief that people should stand on their own two feet and that such hand outs actually contribute to the problem then you lean in another direction. Which act is good ceases to be a fundamental truth and degenerates into opinions - and for the most part the vast majority of us are content to simply muddle through with these opinions - I'm certainly not about to devote a large chunk of my time to researching the truth in which side of the coin is closer to the truth - its to much work - so I simply go with my rather uninformed opinion of the situation. Even this though is a simplification - most of us probably sometimes give to beggars depending on a wide number of perceived circumstances and maybe even whats happened to us and having nothing to do with the true circumstances of the beggars. If I've just won the lottery its a good day to be a street beggar in my presence - if I was just fired, even if I kind of agree that I screwed up badly enough to justify firing me its not going to help the street beggar much being around me (unless I want to remind myself that I could be in a worse situation - I could be like this guy).
We end up trying to apply a quantitative formula without having enough information to even know what all the amounts in the formula equal to and in the end everyone is using a unique formula anyway. Not to mention that - basically speaking every character in a roleplaying game is given a two dimensional alignment based on the role he is in during his major activities. The shopkeeper is Lawful Neutral because he enforces his prices rigidly and fairly but won't budge due to the buyers circumstance. This tells us nothing about the rest of his life - He could be a brutal tyrant at home who rapes his sons and daughters regularly - Thats CE and it totally outweighs any rigidly fair activities he might engage in at work - so should this guy detect as CE to the Paladin - would that give the Paladin anything like a true impression of the transaction about to take place - not at all.
If we reversed the situation and said the guy was a saint who had a failing in that he likes to rip off adventurers our Paladin player is going to complain bitterly when it later turns out that they have been blind sided by the cheat after he had detected as LG.
I'd tend to agree that Robin Hood is an interesting character in terms of alignment. So long as he is an outlaw with a band of merry men fighting an unjust system he really seems CG. But presumably if King John shows up and straightens out most of the wrongs then Robin Hood has accomplished his goals and for the rest of his life he hangs out with (the no longer a Maid) Marion has children and is an upright citizen who upholds the laws of the land. So was he always LG? or maybe alignments have nothing to do with his innate nature and they are merely mutable depending on the circumstances he finds himself in.
In a game I would DM, Robin Hood would start out as CG. But eventually become LG. This would take time. In Robin Hoods case many years. This is posible because Robin Hood's innate nature is mutable.
The change in alignment in Robin Hoods case would be induced by the change in his enviroment. Like gaining a tan when exposed to the sun ( a poor example but you get the point). After 37 years from the first breath, I have seen anumber of desperate young men become respectable members of thier comunity. When thier curicumstance changed so did thier very nature.
Back to a gaming example, In the campaign I am running a character moved from CG to LG in about 6 levels of play. This character, known as Tolken took a long route to LG. Moving through CN, N, LN before becoming LG. The player is a newbie picking his alighnment by the suggestion of another player. As we began gaming Tolken threatened to eat others and was quick to draw a sword on all who would cross him or his compaignions. More CN nature if you ask me. But soon he became more discplined, holding his tongue at times and his sword in others. Letting another PC even get in trouble with the town gaurd, cause he knew there was no need for a fight. After some discussion it was decided that TOlken would move from CN to LN with one level spent in alighnmtn N. After the move in alighnment to LN and maturing as a role player by the player, we discovered that Tolken was very compationate and cared about the well being of others, so we decided Tolken would be LG. All though I believe Tolken will settle into this alignment. Tolken alignment did change as did his very nature. I like to think Tolken alignment change came through maturity.
I think a mutable innate nature and change of alignment is at the very core of the villian at the end of the Shackled City Adventure Path. I do not want to spoil it for the others but those of you have read it, just got to look at it.
Anyway, I think it funny that so much is debated on how well a game mechanic can explain the real world. Common people don't move in 5' increments and do or fight in 6 second rounds. I believe what makes this thread so interesting and long, is not on the debate on the alignment system's viability as a game mechanic (which it is a game mechanic), But a moral and ethical debate over human behavior and nature. What is Good, Evil, Law, Chaos in human behavior.
I like it.
Mahalo everyone for a coool thread
If someone were actually attacking me in real life, I don't think they would approach within 30 feet of me and take a swing within a six second time frame, then wait for me to either make a return attack or move sixty feet in the next six seconds (perhaps provoking an attack of opportunity) and then take their six second 'turn'.
The brawlers aren't just standing there in front of each other jabbing once every six seconds. Actually, there are many swings and jabs during the six second 'turn' on each side. The game mechanics just tell us how many of those punches actually have a chance to knock your opponent. The dice don't say, but the brawlers are throwing chairs, moving around, breaking bottles over each others heads. And by the time one member gets knocked out, the room would look like a total mess.
That's how I see it anyway.
Ultradan
You had addictions. You were not evil, you were sick. The drugs prohibited you from making good decisions. But, with a lot of pain and effort, you managed to beat them. Good for you man. Many are not so strong.
Mind you, that I agree with what you say, that someone who kills their children while on crack should indeed be put away. Drugged or not, you are always responsible for your actions.
But the whole "being sick" label takes away the responsibility, does it not? Addiction is a hard thing to deal with to be sure, but to call it an illness means that it is out of an addict's control and therefore not their responsibility.
Alignment threads always seem to degenerate into a quagmire of philosophical debate that goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing. I've got no problem with debate; I love it. But I expect some gain out of it, which I have yet to achieve on an alignment thread. Thus, I'll avoid posting on them from now on.
Saern,
Don't get fed up with the debate. I agree with you completely - but do not STOP sharing your views and opinions.I've had more than enough debates around the table and around messageboards to agree with you. Alignment discussions become philosophical nitpicking filled with logical fallacies.
Why do most people think that morals and ethics are relative? Because they don't want to be "wrong" and it's uncomfortable to tell someone else that they're "wrong." But you know what? We're wrong sometimes. We make a bad decision, we act selfishly, we are wrong. In fact, I'm even open to the idea that my opinion may in fact be wrong (but not bloody likely).
You can't imagine someone holding onto the desire to work for the greater good and uphold all the laws of their church and community? A paladin follows a calling from a higher power, a vocation to serve. Players might not be following a vocation in real life (hate your job? feeling empty? find your vocation!) and that is indeed tragic. But if you can't empathize with a character then don't play her. Play a character that fits with your amorphous relative view of what's right and wrong (CN most likely).
I'd tend to agree that Robin Hood is an interesting character in terms of alignment. So long as he is an outlaw with a band of merry men fighting an unjust system he really seems CG...
After 30 years of D&D people still disagree on these things. How peculiar :/
I think Robin Hood is LG from the get-go. For me, Lawful doesn't mean they must follow the law -- rather, they must follow a law (or some code of behavior they believe should govern everyone). In RH's case, he refused to recognize the authority of the Sheriff of Nottingham (et al) as a legitimate government, but he is always working for the good of all people.
As I interpret things, Chaotic is a 'live and let live' philosophy. Or 'live and who cares' if you're CN. Or 'live and to hell with you' if you are CE :)
For what it's worth.
Jack
|
|
But the whole "being sick" label takes away the responsibility, does it not? Addiction is a hard thing to deal with to be sure, but to call it an illness means that it is out of an addict's control and therefore not their responsibility.You had addictions. You were not evil, you were sick. The drugs prohibited you from making good decisions. But, with a lot of pain and effort, you managed to beat them. Good for you man. Many are not so strong.
Mind you, that I agree with what you say, that someone who kills their children while on crack should indeed be put away. Drugged or not, you are always responsible for your actions.
That is my stance also, and my addictions were about as bad as you can get without killing yourself. Having discussions with other people who have had addictions I find they either refuse to get over their addiction (the words "recovering addict" being used after 10 yrs clean is ridiculous) or they tend to write it off as a sickness that was beyond their control. Very few say "I used to be an addict." Just an observation.
FH
|
|
I'd tend to agree that Robin Hood is an interesting character in terms of alignment. So long as he is an outlaw with a band of merry men fighting an unjust system he really seems CG...After 30 years of D&D people still disagree on these things. How peculiar :/
I think Robin Hood is LG from the get-go. For me, Lawful doesn't mean they must follow the law -- rather, they must follow a law (or some code of behavior they believe should govern everyone). In RH's case, he refused to recognize the authority of the Sheriff of Nottingham (et al) as a legitimate government, but he is always working for the good of all people.
As I interpret things, Chaotic is a 'live and let live' philosophy. Or 'live and who cares' if you're CN. Or 'live and to hell with you' if you are CE :)
For what it's worth.
Jack
I agree Lawful doesn't mean law-abiding, it is an adherance to codes of conduct, a lifestyle choice (organizational skills) or acting in a fashion dictated by a certain mindset (predictable). I always took Chaotic to mean random, unpredictable, or disorganized, not a law-breaker necessarily. Good I always thought of as pulling the kid from in front of the on-coming bus, even if your safety is at risk. Neutral I see as "I wasn't gonna jump in front of the bus to risk my neck.". Evil.....pushed the kid in front of the bus. The problem I have trouble grasping is the neutral between Lawful and Chaotic axis.
FH
After 30 years of D&D people still disagree on these things. How peculiar :/I think Robin Hood is LG from the get-go. For me, Lawful doesn't mean they must follow the law -- rather, they must follow a law (or some code of behavior they believe should govern everyone). In RH's case, he refused to recognize the authority of the Sheriff of Nottingham (et al) as a legitimate government, but he is always working for the good of all people.
As I interpret things, Chaotic is a 'live and let live' philosophy. Or 'live and who cares' if you're CN. Or 'live and to hell with you' if you are CE :)
For what it's worth.
Jack
Potentially he's LG - if we can we can say that he knows which laws King John is going to implement and he agrees with them. That said all we really know about Robin Hood is that he does not like corrupt laws. He could well be happy with 'any' set of laws so long as they are just and not implemented by corrupt individuals.
Another issue I see here is that we are asking alignment to play two roles and in this case I think they lead in different directions.
If we presume that Robin Hood is LG all along how do we explain the methods and tactics he is portrayed as utilizing. That band of Merry Men strikes me as quintessential CG. Loose leadership, loose planning and generally loose objectives. There is no clear hierarchies or anything I might associate with the rigid but good way of thinking that is associated with LG.
In essence Robin Hoods methods are in line with CG but what he ultimately hopes to achieve is in line with LG - so which one takes precedence? Is how you act more important then what you believe in or vice versa?
In the end I think we end up back at people being different alignments based on the circumstances in their lives and the role they are playing.
Certainly - as was given above - people can fundamentally change as time goes by. But in Robin Hoods case I don't think he changes from CG to LG instead he is always both alignments at the same time. He's CG in his methods and LG in his values.
Um . . . with all due respect to the Robin Hood debate . . . if he likes laws as implemented by a just king, but dislikes ones implemented by an unfair ruler, and wants the just king back and is willing to use non-lawful means to acheive this goal . . .
Why wouldn't he be Neutral good?