In reference to the original post,
Didn't BASIC DnD have a graph like that? Lawful..Good...Neutral..Evil..Chaotic? or something like that? It has been too many years since I played for me to remember correctly. But that may be where the linear graph was seen before. I guess it could have been EXPERT. *shrugs*
And Kirth, I read "The Prairie" in middle school. ( I arrived HOURS before school started. Mom taught there.) And fell in love with that old man. I eventually read all the Leatherstocking tales out of order. It is good to see Natty's persona being used for DnD. Though I simplistically would have just made him CG.
wasgreg
What makes a good man turn neutral?
Two axes just ain't cuttin' it, for me. I really want three:
Only three? Not nearly good enough.
Personally, I'm ASDLKTFJAEIYXDFCAFNAWEKJRZIUZ
Disclaimer: I'll comment only on the graph, and the interpretation of it. My views on the alignment scale on a whole might be totally different, and cannot be inferred from this post :)
We see that everything above the center dividing line is Good, everything below is Evil. Everything Left of the Center point is Lawful everthing right is Chaotic.
That's not an observation, that's a definition. That is, your argument holds only if good (and evil) is defined that way. Another way of defining good would be to say that everything 400 points into good is good, and the rest are neutral (or evil).
I find it arbitrary to designate only straight up is pure good, because we can simply rotate the scale 45 degrees and now LG is more good or CG is more good.
No, you cannot. The whole point of (two-dimensional) Cartesian coordinate system is that you measure the points in the plane in relation to the two axes chosen. If you rotate the plane the axes rotate as well, and you're still measuring goodness against the good-evil axis. No matter that the axis now runs diagonally.
Considering these two basic flaws the rest of your post is logically incorrect. Though, in the context of the discussion it was entertaining and interesting.
But again, why use a Cartesian system at all, these are not linked x-y axes, they are independant of distance from nuetrality, only value matters. So LG is still G, the Good-Evil axis is independant of Law or Chaos. Its a grid with nine points, why would it suddenly become a circle?
|
But again, why use a Cartesian system at all, these are not linked x-y axes, they are independant of distance from nuetrality, only value matters. So LG is still G, the Good-Evil axis is independant of Law or Chaos. Its a grid with nine points, why would it suddenly become a circle?
mmmm very good point!
|
|
Disclaimer: I'll comment only on the graph, and the interpretation of it. My views on the alignment scale on a whole might be totally different, and cannot be inferred from this post :)
We see that everything above the center dividing line is Good, everything below is Evil. Everything Left of the Center point is Lawful everthing right is Chaotic.That's not an observation, that's a definition. That is, your argument holds only if good (and evil) is defined that way. Another way of defining good would be to say that everything 400 points into good is good, and the rest are neutral (or evil).
I find it arbitrary to designate only straight up is pure good, because we can simply rotate the scale 45 degrees and now LG is more good or CG is more good.No, you cannot. The whole point of (two-dimensional) Cartesian coordinate system is that you measure the points in the plane in relation to the two axes chosen. If you rotate the plane the axes rotate as well, and you're still measuring goodness against the good-evil axis. No matter that the axis now runs diagonally.
Considering these two basic flaws the rest of your post is logically incorrect. Though, in the context of the discussion it was entertaining and interesting.
lol the point being in the post that the way it is measured is arbitrary. I guess I just didn't make that very clear and my example failed to illustrate that. In other words, the graphs can be made to measure and claim just about anything you wish. That depends upon solely upon the conditions and definitions you choose to apply to the graph, which is all personal choices, and not inherent within the graph.
Is that better?
Heh. Who wrote that poem about the pot on the hill in Tennessee? "It did not give of bird or bush/ Like nothing else in Tennessee." Who knew it was actually the zero-point of an alignment scale?
Sheesh, with all the Shakespeare discussing going on around here, you're still going to make me look it up myself? :P
Sure...with all that Shakespear readin', when do I have time for Wally?
;)
EDIT: Now you can explain the poem to me...
EDIT: Now you can explain the poem to me...
Well, if my 11th-grade English teacher is to be believed, it has to do with how man, in attempting to define a thing, changes the thing itself. By placing a pot on a hill and designating it as a center point of a wilderness, the pot-placer has in fact encroached upon the wilderness by his act of definition and caused it to "sprawl around, no longer wild." That is, wilderness, once defined and designated as such, ceases to be truly wild and is domesticated.
There's a point in there about systems defining alignment too, if you poke it.
Whew. For a minute there, I had a panic attack. I taught 4-8th grade poetry at different times through the years. And just yesterday, I met a guy I have no memory of who said I was the TA when he took Church History in seminary.
Anyway, I will think about this poem...thanks!
Back in the alpha, I fiddled with the alignment section of the d20 SRD to try to produce a more useable document. Essentially, I tried to address several areas of consistent debate and strip out some stereotypes. I posted it here.
The premise of my reasoning was basically that every alignment believes itself the best. (To use the 'rotating the scale' metaphor, each alignment puts themselves at the top.) Thus, they can never be ranked in a single line.
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment on two axes: Good to Evil and Law to Chaos.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. Alignment can also change over time.
Good Vs. Evil
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of others. Good characters feel that the goal of life is to make the world better. They will sacrifice to make life better for others, even strangers. For example, a village priest might live in poverty so that more of his temple’s money can go to the local orphanage.
"Evil" implies selfishness, a disregard for life, and contempt for others. Evil characters feel that the world is a harsh place, and that each individual is purely responsible for their own wellbeing. They will hurt others to make life better for themselves and their allies. For instance, a highway brigand steals and sometimes kills because it is easier and more profitable than working.
Frequently, Evil characters do not think of themselves as ‘bad’: rationalizing their actions as merely as doing what is necessary to succeed. For example, the taskmaster of a workhouse exploits the orphans under his care, underfeeding and overworking them. He might justify it as being better than the children being out on the street. A good rule of thumb is that if you have to explain why it’s Good, it’s Evil.
Some Evil characters simply enjoy causing pain and suffering to others. While it is worth noting that Sadism is not automatically Evil (for instance, between two consenting adults), inflicting harm on others simply for enjoyment is usually Evil.
Good characters view Evil characters as cruel, heartless, and selfish. Evil characters view Good characters as foolish, weak, and naïve.
Characters who are neutral with respect to Good and Evil fall between these two extremes, either by lack of a clear choice or by a conscious seeking of balance between themselves and others. For instance, a typical peasant is neutral, because while he may avoid harming others, he lacks the commitment to make hard sacrifices in order to help others. A dedicated druid, on the other hand, may deliberately seek the balance between care for others and care for oneself.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are Neutral rather than Good or Evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are Neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Some mindless creatures, such as Zombies, are Evil despite a lack of moral capacity, due to the Evil and malice inherent in their creation.
Law Vs. Chaos
“Law” implies order, discipline, and predictability. Lawful characters believe that everything has a proper role within the universe, and should fulfill that role. They tend to be organized and prefer to plan before acting. Lawful characters favor certainty and are unsettled by the arbitrary. For instance, a judge seeks absolute certainty of guilt or innocence before issuing a sentence. If a law is ambiguous, he will seek or set a precedent to make the meaning clear.
It is important not to confuse “Law” the alignment with the law of the local legal system. While Lawful characters are more likely to obey authority than Chaotic characters, they are likely to hold their own personal ethics or duty above the law of the land. For instance, a paladin might not think twice before breaking an unjust law, while a monk might eschew worldly laws in favor of his own quest for enlightenment and perfection.
“Chaos” implies freedom, impulsiveness, and flexibility. Chaotic characters believe in living life to the fullest. They tend to act in the now, doing whatever seems best in the moment. Chaotic characters love a good surprise. For example, a wandering bard considers life to be an unwritten story, and seeks to make his story as exciting as possible. He feels that if he knows what tomorrow holds, then tomorrow is wasted.
A Chaotic character is still capable of planning for the future and predicting the consequences of their actions. For instance, a Chaotic thief may have contempt for authority, but will still refrain from picking a pocket in plain view of a town guard, because he doesn’t want to go to prison. However, a Chaotic character’s plans are usually much more vague than those of a Lawful character.
Lawful characters view Chaotic characters as reckless, short-sighted, undisciplined, and untrustworthy. Chaotic characters view Lawful characters as close-minded, bossy, judgmental, and slaves to routine.
Characters who are neutral with respect to Law and Chaos fall between these two extremes, either by lack of a clear choice or by a conscious seeking of balance between themselves and others. For instance, a typical farmer is neutral, because while he understands the value of routine and the predictable cycle of the seasons, he often wishes his life were more exciting. A philosopher, on the other hand, may deliberately seek the balance between fate and free-will.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly Lawful or Chaotic.
The Nine Alignments
Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful-chaotic axis with the Good-Evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.
The first six alignments, Lawful Good through Chaotic Neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three Evil alignments are usually reserved for monsters and villains. Of course, exceptions exist.
Regardless of alignment, a character acts rationally, within the limits of his mental ability.
Lawful Good, "Duty"
A Lawful Good character believes that an orderly world is the best way for everyone to live well and happily, vice verse, or both. He feels that everyone has a duty to make the world a better place, and should work together to do so.
For instance, a Lawful Good soldier might feel that it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak, since the weak cannot protect themselves.
A Lawful Good character may feel the conflict between Law and Good when ‘doing the right thing’ means upsetting the social order, or when following their duty leads to innocents being harmed.
Lawful Good characters include Aragorn, Optimus Prime, Captain America, and King Arthur.
Lawful Good is the best alignment because it combines honor and compassion.
Neutral Good, "Hope"
A Neutral Good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others.
For instance, a Neutral Good shopkeeper might offer discounts or even free services to those in need.
Neutral Good characters include Samwise Gangee, Spiderman, and Luke Skywalker.
Neutral Good is the best alignment because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.
Chaotic Good, "Freedom"
A Chaotic Good character believes that every individual should help others and pursue happiness in his or her own way. He favors doing away laws, taboos, and tradition if they restrict anyone from finding happiness.
For instance, a Chaotic Good ranger might help smuggle individuals across patrolled national borders, viewing the border taxes as unnecessary restrictions with no benefit.
A Chaotic Good character may feel the conflict between Chaos and Good when helping others requires committing to future plans.
Chaotic Good characters include Robin Hood, the Flash, and Han Solo (at the end of the movie).
Chaotic Good is the best alignment because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Lawful Neutral, "Order"
A Lawful Neutral character believes that an orderly world is a perfect world. She may act as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
For example, A Lawful Neutral wizard studies magic in order to understand the fundamental laws of the universe.
Lawful Neutral characters include the Punisher, Surak, and Odysseus.
Lawful Neutral is the best alignment because it means seeking order without the conflicts of Good or the corruption of Evil.
True Neutral, "Undecided" or “Balance”
A True Neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to Good vs. Evil or Law vs. Chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably still thinks of Good as better than Evil—after all, she would rather have Good neighbors and rulers than Evil ones. Even so, she’s not personally committed to upholding Good in any abstract or universal way.
For example, a horse is ‘undecided’ because it is incapable of favoring Good over Evil, or Law over Chaos.
Some True Neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of Neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
For example, a ‘balanced’ druid might seek to keep all things in balance, as the natural world does. He might protect a human town from a band of gnolls, but then protect the gnoll camp from human retaliation.
True Neutral characters include Tom Bombadil, Dr. Strangelove, and Marv from Sin City.
True Neutral is the best alignment because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
Sometimes, ‘undecided’ True Neutral characters might be referred to as ‘Neutral Neutral’ or just ‘Neutral’, reserving ‘True Neutral’ for ‘balanced’ characters.
Chaotic Neutral, "Anarchy"
A Chaotic Neutral character is an individualist. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable to others, but he acts rationally. His behavior is not random, nor so shortsighted as to be blatantly self-destructive.
A Chaotic Neutral character does what he pleases, but stops short of actually hurting others, or stealing from those who cannot afford it. Doing so would mean harming others for personal gain, which is Evil.
For example, a Chaotic Neutral rogue might act as a smuggler, because such a job allows a great deal of freedom, while not being bound by the laws of ordinary society.
Chaotic Neutral characters include the Hulk, Jack Sparrow, and Han Solo (beginning of the movie).
Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment because it represents true freedom, without harming others.
Lawful Evil, "Tyranny"
A Lawful Evil character believes that an orderly world is the best way to secure personal power, vice versa, or both. He feels that each individual should look out for itself, and that a ‘fair’ set of rules will lead to everyone getting what they deserve and taking it from those who do not. He is frequently comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve.
For instance, a Lawful Evil noble believes that the weak exist to serve the strong. He relies on the law to protect his power, and believes that the failure of others to secure a fair share under the law proves that they do not deserve one. He follows the law himself because otherwise he cannot expect his underlings and other threats to follow it.
A Lawful Evil character may feel the conflict between Evil and Law when his laws prevent him from taking what he wants, or when he is trapped with his own word or contract.
Lawful Evil characters include Magneto, Moriarty, Lex Luthor, and Redcloak.
Lawful Evil is the best alignment because it represents self-interest without being arbitrary.
Neutral Evil, "Despair"
A Neutral Evil character does whatever she can get away with. Unlike a Chaotic Neutral character, however, a Neutral Evil character doesn’t care about personal freedom or care about others’ traditions, and is not opposed to personal routine.
For example, a Neutral Evil necromancer defiles the bodies of the dead in order to expand his own power, trapping their souls to fuel his undead servants.
Neutral Evil characters include Saruman, Antoine Chigurh, and R’as Al-ghul.
Neutral Evil is the best alignment because it represents pure self-interest without building order or sowing chaos.
Chaotic Evil, "Destruction"
A Chaotic Evil character believes that every individual should seek to take what they can and do whatever they want, without regard for who or what is hurt. Generally, he does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. A Chaotic Evil character is distinguished from a Neutral Evil character either by actively spreading Chaos and terror or by sheer recklessness.
For example, a Chaotic Evil warlord terrorizes the countryside, and only keeps his own forces in line through bullying and personal power.
Chaotic Evil characters include Belkar, the Joker, Black Mage, and Alex from A Clockwork Orange.
Chaotic Evil is the best alignment because it represents unparalleled freedom to do as you please.
But again, why use a Cartesian system at all, these are not linked x-y axes, they are independant of distance from nuetrality, only value matters. So LG is still G, the Good-Evil axis is independant of Law or Chaos. Its a grid with nine points, why would it suddenly become a circle?
The circle concept works if you consider alignment to have a concrete value limit. This would be so if it were based on actions. There's a limit of what actions can be taken by one being, and so those actions, when considered along a spectrum (let's say) from NG to LN, would form a circle.
Each point on the arc of the circle would represent a different "focus" of the individual, an ideal to strive for. That could be straight up NG, or 10% of the way (4.5 degrees) from LN to LG. Whatever the ideal, the individual would then *act* in some manner to the limit of action.
It incorporates the idea that you can't take the most lawful and the most good action at all times, sometimes there is a choice to be made between them.
I think the "circle" and the square 'independent-axes' models both work - though the circle has a certain mathematical elegance (e.g. my alignment is (pi) = LN).
I understand that, but the first implies that a nuetral person simply takes less actions, and that a person who takes a non-alignment action is veering from the their maximum potential.
I think its a silly mathematisation of a unphysical concept.
I think the grid represents that conflict and interaction between LC and GE fine, without quantisation. Morality doesn't have units or direction in that way.
Anecdote of the Jar by Wallace Stevens
Love that dude. Got his collected works, and I pick it up at odd times, open to a random page, and just soak up the awesomeness. Then again, I'm a Zen Buddhist, so I guess I'm the target audience anyway...
We see that LG, NG, and CH all extend 1000 points into good.
No, because Good is an *axis*. If you're at latitude 0, longitude 0, and you go 1000 miles EAST and then 1 mile NORTH, you're not "extending 1000 miles into north," you're just *one* mile into north.
Let's discard the idea of alignments for a moment and look at this in terms of graphing temperature vs. moistness. Look, I made a graph of this.
All eight purple lettered points (at the end of the eight arrows) are exactly 1.0 units away from the center point. Clearly point A is more Hot than point B or H. B and H are both equally "extreme environments" relative to the "tepidly comfortable" at center point 0,0 but in no way can you argue that they are "just as hot" as point A. Point A is at Temperature 1.0, Moistness 0; Point B is at Temperature .707, Moistness .707; Point H is at Temperature .707, Moistness –.707. Because Temperature 1.0 is more than Temperature .707, it is quite clear that Point A is hotter than Point B or Point H.
Now let's switch it back to alignment. Look, I made a graph of this, too.
So point A (Neutral Good) is at 1.0 on the Good vs. Evil scale and 0.0 on the Law vs. Chaos scale. Point B (Chaotic Good) is at .707 on the GvE scale and .707 on the LvC scale. Clearly Point A is more Good than Point B, just as it is clear that Point B is more Chaotic than Point A.
I find it arbitrary to designate only straight up is pure good, because we can simply rotate the scale 45 degrees and now LG is more good or CG is more good.
Irrelevant and incorrect because the *axes* rotate with the graph; this isn't a simple pie chart, it's a *graph*, and on a graph the axes have meaning. So rotating the graph just changes the viewer's orientation, not the values of the graph. Here, I'll show you.
I had almost two years of collegiate calculus, I know my graphing. :p
The only way to arrive at one form being more good than another is if the lines are NOT all 1000 points from neutral.
This comment has some merit, because realistically nobody is 100% LG or 100% NG or 100% CG, they're only partially committed. Yellow dots represent where sample people fall on the alignment graph. Notice how none of them are at the edge of the circle where distance = 1.0.
In fact the ONLY way that ALL lines are equal, is if the person asking the question is in fact true neutral. In fact a LG person might view the graph more like this, and then only LG is the most good as it is longest, chaotic good being the absolute least good.
This graph is erroneous, as it's suggesting that the LG person believes the CE person is less extreme kind of evil than LE or NE.
So, IF we follow the SKR's graph, all lines being equal in length, then all good is of equal value.
No. Going east 1000 miles, then north 1 mile is not "equally as North" as going due north 1000 miles. :)
It incorporates the idea that you can't take the most lawful and the most good action at all times, sometimes there is a choice to be made between them.
Exactly.
If presented with a situation where they have the choice to perform or allow a Good act, and a true LG character says, "I can't do that because it goes against my Lawfulness," that character is being less Good than an NG or CG character.If the CG character says, "I can't do that because it goes against my Chaoticness," that character is being less Good than an NG or LG character.
Over time, this means the LG and CG characters have fewer opportunities to do Good because the rest of their alignment puts them into conflict with the nature of some of the Good they might perform if they weren't Lawful or Chaotic.
I agree entirely with Sean's example, and by that circle NG is indeed the goodest good, and the temperature moistness example verifies that perfectly.
However, it verifies the circular model, and I question why use that model at all, T vs. Moistness is a measure of two physical, quantifiable amounts. Alignment is not, the axes are independant, thus all good is just good without numerical categorisation, or being lessened by the participation in or distance fromm the law/chaos axis.
I have to disagree with Mr Reynolds here (although I agree with him on almost everything else except making Gingwatzim into air elementals...!). Alignment is more useful if it's a continuum, not a locus. All NG people are not equally NG; even in 1e we had N(G) as a nomenclature. If we compare a person who's a bit chaotic, and very, very good (CG) againt a person who's sorta good (NG), the CG guy might still be "more" good.
As vagrant-poet alludes, if the two axes aren't independent from each other, they're not two axes; they're a single scale.
And now for the problem with that symbol: how did Chaos get such an orderly looking symbol?
|
|
I have to disagree with Mr Reynolds here (although I agree with him on almost everything else except making Gingwatzim into air elementals...!). Alignment is more useful if it's a continuum, not a locus. All NG people are not equally NG; even in 1e we had N(G) as a nomenclature. If we compare a person who's a bit chaotic, and very, very good (CG) againt a person who's sorta good (NG), the CG guy might still be "more" good.
As vagrant-poet alludes, if the two axes aren't independent from each other, they're not two axes; they're a single scale.
Yes but wouldn't that NG actually be NG with N leanings I suppose NG(N)? :) How about the really really good CG guy vs the not so good CG guy? Would that mean that CG is less good than CG?
Ok, Sean, let's just say then that applying the alignments to your graph is itself entirely arbitrary. Alignments are not geometry like I said at first. Granted I should not have tried to use a flawed argument to prove that a flawed argument doesn't work. :)
So here then, answer this- What is more good than good? What is more evil than evil?
hey I just realized a major flaw in the movement of 3.5/PRPG! If I move my character diagonally 6 inches I haven't REALLY moved 6 inches, so I should still have movement! The axis of the graph runs up and down, left and right, so moving diagonally I don't actually move as far! I should get a LOT more movement. Thanks Sean, I'll show my PFS GM your rationale how diagonal movement is not equal in distance as axial movement. :)
How about the really really good CG guy vs the not so good CG guy? Would that mean that CG is less good than CG?
It means that you can be any distance along any axis. Some CG guys are more G than others. Some are more C than others. Some are both. Some LG guys are so good they make some of the NG guys seem sort of questionably neutral. The only question is, do the axes extend infinitely in any direction? I say yes, they do. Find me the "evillest" daemon in all the planes, I can probably find a demon or devil just as evil, and I can easily imagine one even "eviller."
Not everyone in the world is exactly one unit from the origin point.
|
|
How about the really really good CG guy vs the not so good CG guy? Would that mean that CG is less good than CG?It means that you can be any distance along any axis. Some CG guys are more G than others. Some are more C than others. Some are both. Some LG guys are so good they make some of the NG guys seem sort of questionably neutral. The only question is, do the axes extend infinitely in any direction? I say yes, they do. Find me the "evillest" daemon in all the planes, I can probably find a demon or devil just as evil, and I can easily imagine one even "eviller."
Not everyone in the world is exactly one unit from the origin point.
Well, see, you're more arguing along the lines of what I would argue though. Except I don't want to use geometry to define philosophy. :)
What you seem to be saying, correct me if I am wrong, is that is possible for a LG guy to be more good than a NG guy, where as Sean is arguing that NG is ALWAYS more good than LG or CG simply because he is NG.
The only difference I see in our views is you see the axis extending infinitely, and I say "there is no axis." <Looks at the axis and ponders> "There is no axis?"
|
And now for the problem with that symbol: how did Chaos get such an orderly looking symbol?
Here's a wikipedia link explaining it-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_ChaosIt's from Elric. Michael Moorcock gave it arrows pointing in all directions to represent all possibilities and paths (and also perhaps entropy) as opposed to a single, straight arrow showing the one path of law.
It does come off as looking awfully orderly, though.
The only difference I see in our views is you see the axis extending infinitely, and I say "there is no axis." <Looks at the axis and ponders> "There is no axis?"
Axes are often (as in this case) artificial lines imposed on a non-orderly reality, to try and make sense out of it. This isn't true in all cases: humans are bilaterally symmetrical, like it or not, and the Earth spins on a well-defined physical axis (although the longitude lines are pure B.S.). But in other cases, imposing Cartesian (or other) coordinates on a non-cartesian system is just a way to try to quantify it in such a manner than human minds can make more sense it.
|
|
I do have a question for you Sean... seriously please explain this to me...
Three cars start on the center of the southern border of Kansas. One car drives 100 miles due north into Kansas. The second car drives 100 miles NW into Kansas. The third car has driven 100 miles NE into Kansas.
Which car has driven further in Kansas?
I think y'all are missing the part where I said this:
This comment has some merit, because realistically nobody is 100% LG or 100% NG or 100% CG, they're only partially committed. Yellow dots on this graph represent where sample people fall on the alignment graph. Notice how none of them are at the edge of the circle where distance = 1.0.
New text and emphasis added in bold.
Ok, Sean, let's just say then that applying the alignments to your graph is itself entirely arbitrary. Alignments are not geometry like I said at first. Granted I should not have tried to use a flawed argument to prove that a flawed argument doesn't work. :)
So here then, answer this- What is more good than good? What is more evil than evil
Now you've stopped trying to have a rational discussion and have gone into the realm of nonsensical sentences. :p
|
|
The only difference I see in our views is you see the axis extending infinitely, and I say "there is no axis." <Looks at the axis and ponders> "There is no axis?"Axes are often (as in this case) artificial lines imposed on a non-orderly reality, to try and make sense out of it. This isn't true in all cases: humans are bilaterally symmetrical, like it or not, and the Earth spins on a well-defined physical axis (although the longitude lines are pure B.S.). But in other cases, imposing Cartesian (or other) coordinates on a non-cartesian system is just a way to try to quantify it in such a manner than human minds can make more sense it.
true, that is like calling an apple an orange so we can better understand the apple, but the fact is that the apple is still an apple and not an orange and the understanding we have of the apple/orange is a flawed understanding of the apple...
It would be better to argue philosophy with philosophy and leave geometry to mathematics. No matter how you try to quantify and relate with geometry that understanding will never truly understand philosophy. Philosophy has a way of bending absolutes and making them relative, whereas geometry does not.
It is like defining the color Blue by saying it is white light without Red or Green light. But do you REALLY now understand Blue?
I think y'all are missing the part where I said this: Notice how none of them are at the edge of the circle where distance = 1.0.
I got that, but just disagree that there is an "edge" to the "circle." I like to think it's an open area, potentially infinite in extent in all directions.
It would be better to argue philosophy with philosophy and leave geometry to mathematics. No matter how you try to quantify and relate with geometry that understanding will never truly understand philosophy. Philosophy has a way of bending absolutes and making them relative, whereas geometry does not.
Then scrap the existing alignment system, which is more or less what I've done in my games.
|
|
I think y'all are missing the part where I said this:
This comment has some merit, because realistically nobody is 100% LG or 100% NG or 100% CG, they're only partially committed. Yellow dots on this graph represent where sample people fall on the alignment graph. Notice how none of them are at the edge of the circle where distance = 1.0.
New text and emphasis added in bold.
Now you've stopped trying to have a rational discussion and have gone into the realm of nonsensical sentences. :pOk, Sean, let's just say then that applying the alignments to your graph is itself entirely arbitrary. Alignments are not geometry like I said at first. Granted I should not have tried to use a flawed argument to prove that a flawed argument doesn't work. :)
So here then, answer this- What is more good than good? What is more evil than evil
no Sean, because you do not understand it does NOT mean it is nonsense at all. Your ignorance is showing now. Come on. I am dead serious here.
YOU are the one who has argued that NG is more good than other good. So, back it up, define it. What is more good than good?
Or put in non math terms do you now realize how silly your argument is?
I am betting you can't define your own argument.
This is 100% relevant and logical.
But you can't do it so it is nonsensical to you. Come on. Don't give up now. You are on the verge of making me a believer, of creating a whole new form of philosophy here. Roll with it, and do it.
*************EDIT***************
and hey, DO NOT TAKE THIS AS ME TRYING TO BE RUDE OR ANYTHING. This is a discussion. Nothing more. I have the utmost respect for you, but in this particular case, I really think you are oversimplifying things to fit a preconceived notion. So, yes, if you can prove to me that there is some good that is better than good then yes I will agree with you 100% and sing it to the heavens that you were right all along.
|
|
It would be better to argue philosophy with philosophy and leave geometry to mathematics. No matter how you try to quantify and relate with geometry that understanding will never truly understand philosophy. Philosophy has a way of bending absolutes and making them relative, whereas geometry does not.Then scrap the existing alignment system, which is more or less what I've done in my games.
But why? In the game, alignments are already philosophy, ethics and morals. In the game they are not in anyway, shape or form geometry. Why scrap something in the game that approaches it correctly?
And now for the problem with that symbol: how did Chaos get such an orderly looking symbol?Here's a wikipedia link explaining it-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_ChaosIt's from Elric. Michael Moorcock gave it arrows pointing in all directions to represent all possibilities and paths (and also perhaps entropy) as opposed to a single, straight arrow showing the one path of law.
It does come off as looking awfully orderly, though.
Oh yeah...I know where it comes from. But I'll suppress my tendency to criticize Moorcock in general and stick with what a poor symbol it is for Chaos.
Besides, law doesn't have one path, it has many. At least, for those of us under common/case law.
You're final statement really reflects what I am getting at. Are you new, Gadigan, or just new to me?
And to those arguing with SKR, thanks for making him bold text. Alignment is all about Allegiance.
Which car has driven further in Kansas?
But which ones are further away from Oklahoma?
THAT is a different question :)Which car has driven further in Kansas?But which ones are further away from Oklahoma?
I disagree. The more 'Good' something is, the further away from 'Evil' it is. Under your metaphor of distance in Kansas, someone who is N(G) is less good than someone who is CN(G), because the CN guy has traveled farther.
The Dome against the Krome!
Take him down, Sean, take him down!
(Sorry Krome, love ya and all, but I've found someone who agrees with me on more than the True Neutral thing! Tough choice, though. Damn, why don't more people agree with me? It's lonely being right.)
|
|
I disagree. The more 'Good' something is, the further away from 'Evil' it is. Under your metaphor of distance in Kansas, someone who is N(G) is less good than someone who is CN(G), because the CN guy has traveled farther.THAT is a different question :)Which car has driven further in Kansas?But which ones are further away from Oklahoma?
Yet interestingly all of them have traveled the exact same distance into Kansas/Good, covering neither more distance than any other and all traveling the exact same distance from the point that is the fulcrum from good and evil...
Neutrality is the point of origin... That is the point that defines everything. Evil is NOT the line that defines anything.
So the journey is not about journeying from evil at all... it is about journeying from Neutrality. Look at that graph... all of the points extend from the center not from Evil...
So journeying the exact same distance from the origin is the same no matter what flavor you add onto it.
If you can show me I am wrong here I will admit it. :)
|
|
The Dome against the Krome!
Take him down, Sean, take him down!(Sorry Krome, love ya and all, but I've found someone who agrees with me on more than the True Neutral thing! Tough choice, though. Damn, why don't more people agree with me? It's lonely being right.)
lol
well, see I will say this as far as D&D goes, I DO think NG is more good than the others, but this whole graph thing is just flawed! It doesn't work at all.
I can argue NG is more good using philosophy, but the graph thing just shows that LG, NG and CG are equidistant from N which is the defining point of the alignments. Using THAT argument, LG, NG, and CG are all equal.
:)
PLUS don't you guys know by now I LOVE being devil's advocate! Just ask KaeYoss! That's why I hope Sean isn't taking it personal, cause it really isn't. I just want him to take his argument and refine it so it actually does hold up. Right now it falls down. Get away from geometry and use the same concepts in philosophy and I think you have something- but it will take some work.
Why take it as a proof rather than as an illustration?
Straight up is the most good (NG). Thus, as SKR said, getting off the good track for a little extra law or a little extra chaos, isn't quite as good as pure, straight up good.
The illustration doesn't make it so, it just gives a representation of how it is so. Is my brain just running down this afternoon?
So journeying the exact same distance from the origin is the same no matter what flavor you add onto it.
If you can show me I am wrong here I will admit it. :)
They are all the same direction from Neutral. That doesn't make them the same. Different directions on a Color Wheel are all the same distance from white, but that doesn't make red and blue the same.
|
|
Oh and just so you guys know... I REALLY think the alignments have no place in the Game. Law and Chaos and Good and Evil should be THEMES to explore, not restrictions to bind your actions into some predefined notion.
It makes convenient tools to allow them to publish books that encourage people to go out and KILL the bad guy without moral qualm because they have defined good guys as good and bad guys as bad and they need killin'
Since the majority of players (according to some surveys I read about RPGs as an industry) are adults and able to deal with moral and ethical questions if they choose, I feel these should be Themes and not rules.
Why take neutrality as the point that defines everything? Take Good as definitive, then everything that moves away from it is less good. If you drew a line, that line would be where the movement away from good is no longer acceptable, and is counted as evil. Neutrality isn't a point on the moral continuum, it's a point off of the moral continuum. (Cf our earlier discussion about "true neutral".)
(And by making evil the absence/privation of good, yes, I'm advocating a certain ancient philosophical tradition. If anybody is keeping score. :D )
|
|
They are all the same direction from Neutral. That doesn't make them the same. Different directions on a Color Wheel are all the same distance from white, but that doesn't make red and blue the same.So journeying the exact same distance from the origin is the same no matter what flavor you add onto it.
If you can show me I am wrong here I will admit it. :)
See you guys are starting to get my point!
Would it make any sense at all to use a color wheel, or time line, or bank account to try and define alignments?
Come up with a different graph, then. Because right now, the one as I understand it, does NOT confer ANY additional value on NG than it does to LG or CG. They all travel equidistant from N.
Find a way to graph them so they DON'T travel equidistant from N and you have something. But N is the defining point in this graph.
I suppose the ONLY way I can see the graph working is if you define as Law and Chaos as NOT capable of being Good. Then, yes, I would agree. But it is my understanding so far (maybe I am wrong) that Law and Chaos CAN be good.
|
|
Why take neutrality as the point that defines everything? Take Good as definitive, then everything that moves away from it is less good. If you drew a line, that line would be where the movement away from good is no longer acceptable, and is counted as evil. Neutrality isn't a point on the moral continuum, it's a point off of the moral continuum. (Cf our earlier discussion about "true neutral".)
(And by making evil the absence/privation of good, yes, I'm advocating a certain ancient philosophical tradition. If anybody is keeping score. :D )
OKAY! You are on to something now! Draw me a graph of THAT incorporating Law and Chaos.
|
|
Why take neutrality as the point that defines everything? Take Good as definitive, then everything that moves away from it is less good. If you drew a line, that line would be where the movement away from good is no longer acceptable, and is counted as evil. Neutrality isn't a point on the moral continuum, it's a point off of the moral continuum. (Cf our earlier discussion about "true neutral".)
(And by making evil the absence/privation of good, yes, I'm advocating a certain ancient philosophical tradition. If anybody is keeping score. :D )
And the reason I am using N as the defining point is because the graph does. Therefore that argument does.
See, what YOU are stating makes more sense! Just work Law and Chaos into it
|
|
Let me explain also why I kept asking people to rotate the graph.
IF you define Good as the axis straight up, then rotate the graph, with Good still straight up, it no longer makes any sense at all as was noted earlier.
IF you define Good as a direction relative to N, then no matter how you rotate the graph it always makes sense.
Therefore, N is the defining element of the graph. We are NOT measuring UP the axis scale, but rather measuring AWAY from N.
If we are measuring AWAY from N, then in that graph, ALL forms of Good are equal.
To make NG "more good" we need to measure away from G, not N.
I don't think the axis extends in an infinite direction for any alignment. I think it is possible to define "ultimate goodness," something so good that it cannot be exceeded without getting into the realm of paradox. It's like "if God is omnipotent, can he use his omnipotent power to create a rock that's so big that even his own omnipotent power can't lift it?" Or "define X as being a certain amount of Good, and then imagine an X' that's even more good than that, so super-good that it makes X look like the definition of Evil."
I've defined a scale where the cardinal directions are at 1.0 Good, Evil, Lawful, and Neutral, and your statement is akin to "Your scale is invalid because it doesn't address how Good yellow is. Just how Good is yellow? See, you can't, therefore your scale is wrong."
Scientific method says "test my hypothesis, try to refute my hypothesis, use the data to create a better hypothesis."
You have done none of these things.
Your responses have been incorrect (like "NG and LG are just as good because they both extend 1000 units into Good") or nonsensical (like "what is more good than good?").
You aren't able to break my hypothesis, so you're asking me to do it for you.