|
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.
No sir.
Look at the graph as you defined it. N is the center from which all alignments are defined. Now maybe I just am looking at it differently than you are. So let me draw a graph and post it in a second that will illustrate what I "see"
Maybe what we have is the same thing but looking at things from a different point of view.
|
|
Ok, new graph!
OK from what I am saying is that N is the defining point of all of the alignments. If you journey away from N in the the direction of Good (BLUE GOOD) and measure the distance away from N you find you have traveled the same distance away from N and towards Good. Therefore all three are equally good.
Now, from what I can tell of your statement you define good as straight up, and any deviation (the cyan Good but not as good as good) as good but not as good as GOOD. So therefore when we measure from N one direction proves to be more Good than the others.
NOW, as to that nonsensical question I asked you... what is more good than good.
That is NOT what I am saying, it is what YOU are saying. You have defined something as being more good than another kind of good. Please expand upon THAT concept.
It is YOUR argument that a certain kind of Good is more good than other Good.
MY argument is that all good is the same.
It is NOT incumbent upon me to defend the concept of some good being more good than others. That is YOUR argument so YOU need to be the one to explain that.
That is why I am asking you to explain that concept. You have not yet done so. You have yet to explain your own statement.
|
|
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.
Yes I have.
All good is Good. All good is equidistant from N.
Done. Proved it. See, easy. :)
Now, please prove that some Good is more good than other Good - your argument not mine.
Give me a minute and I will graph it!
But Krome, by your own admission in another thread, neutral is AMORAL! Therefore, you can't use it to define good or evil.
The only problem I see with what SKR is saying, is that if Good has an absolute limit, then one could always move further away from good (less good/more evil.) But that just says measure from good.
|
|
My view of alignments based upon the rules.
There are exactly nine alignments listed. My graph has exactly nine alignments.
Each point of good exactly the same distance from N.
There are no lines, because that would imply an infinite number of alignments.
I have used a graph to illustrate my point that all good is equal and valid good.
|
|
But Krome, by your own admission in another thread, neutral is AMORAL! Therefore, you can't use it to define good or evil.
The only problem I see with what SKR is saying, is that if Good has an absolute limit, then one could always move further away from good (less good/more evil.) But that just says measure from good.
lol I said Neutral should get off the fence cause their back side has to get sore... and they can go both ways... never said it was amoral...
which it is btw...a distinct disbelief of any moral or ethical code.
But you can still use it to define the others :)
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 rotate a graph without rotating its axes, it is absolutely nonsensical. It's like arguing that i can rotate a map so that I can reach the North Pole by walking east.
If we are measuring AWAY from N, then in that graph, ALL forms of Good are equal.
That depends on if you think the shape of the graph is a circle or square. If the alignment graph is a square, then LG, NG, and CG all share the same bounds of 'goodness'. If the graph is a circle, then an Archon (the extreme of LG) is less Good than a Leonal (the extreme of NG).
I personally think the graph is a circle, because Law and Good do occasionally conflict (as do Chaos and Good). By preferring Law over Chaos, a Paladin is placed in a position of doing less Good in situations where the Good thing to do is also the Chaotic thing.
Note that I am talking about Good as in Good vs. Evil, not good vs. bad (or right vs. wrong). As far as the Paladin in question is concerned, LG is the BEST alignment, and is as righteous as they come. (I personally prefer Law over Chaos, so I'm inclined to agree).
To avoid the semantic confusion over different meanings of (G/g)ood, lets instead look at Evil. NE is more evil than LE or CE. Why? LE limits itself in the Order it constructs: a LE character, particularly one who isn't at the top of the hierarchy, finds their ambitions blunted by the need for order and discipline. CE, on the other hand, can do whatever it likes now, but is unable to build the order required to perpetuate itself. NE is free of those conflicts.
Does that make more sense?
|
|
But Krome, by your own admission in another thread, neutral is AMORAL! Therefore, you can't use it to define good or evil.
The only problem I see with what SKR is saying, is that if Good has an absolute limit, then one could always move further away from good (less good/more evil.) But that just says measure from good.
But you know in a way you are absolutely right.
Which would mean you would need four graphs. One that defines only Good. One that defines only evil. One that defines only Law. One that defines only Chaos.
and then, I suppose really there can't be LN and CN as N would be defined as without ethical or moral code so adding L, C, G, or E to it means no longer any kind of neutral. Instead you have to choose completely LG, CG, LE, or NE!
But you can still use it to define the others :)
You can't use it to measure the others. You can use the contrast to define the difference between morality and amorality, but not to measure variations in morality. The lion killing the antelope has no standard that applies to my helping granny across the street, versus roasting her stringy self over an open flame for the Fourth of July picnic.
EDIT: Once you understand that evil is the privation of the good, you only need one graph for good/evil. I'll leave law/chaos to someone else, at the moment.
|
|
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 rotate a graph without rotating its axes, it is absolutely nonsensical. It's like arguing that i can rotate a map so that I can reach the North Pole by walking east.
If we are measuring AWAY from N, then in that graph, ALL forms of Good are equal.That depends on if you think the shape of the graph is a circle or square. If the alignment graph is a square, then LG, NG, and CG all share the same bounds of 'goodness'. If the graph is a circle, then an Archon (the extreme of LG) is less Good than a Leonal (the extreme of NG).
I personally think the graph is a circle, because Law and Good do occasionally conflict (as do Chaos and Good). By preferring Law over Chaos, a Paladin is placed in a position of doing less Good in situations where the Good thing to do is also the Chaotic thing.
Note that I am talking about Good as in Good vs. Evil, not good vs. bad (or right vs. wrong). As far as the Paladin in question is concerned, LG is the BEST alignment, and is as righteous as they come. (I personally prefer Law over Chaos, so I'm inclined to agree).
To avoid the semantic confusion over different meanings of (G/g)ood, lets instead look at Evil. NE is more evil than LE or CE. Why? LE limits itself in the Order it constructs: a LE character, particularly one who isn't at the top of the hierarchy, finds their ambitions blunted by the need for order and discipline. CE, on the other hand, can do whatever it likes now, but is unable to build the order required to perpetuate itself. NE is free of those conflicts.
Does that make more sense?
lol
if you look into other threads I argue the same thing. And like I said I DO believe NG is more Good than LG and CG.
BUT this whole graph thing is not a valid way of arguing it. I have created a graph that completely contradicts the argument that NG is the better good.
Like I have said again and again, get rid of geometry to define Philosophy.
That is exactly what you did. You used language to define your statement, not a simple graph that does NOT convey any meaning except for arbitrary assumptions. Because OTHER assumptions CAN be made using the exact same graph.
The graph used to PROVE that NG is the better good is incorrect. A graph cannot be used to PROVE that.
I have shown that.
Look at what I have said. Fix the graph or use philosophy to argue philosophy, and not geometry to argue philosophy.
Wouldn't the argument hold that both LN and CN are equally as good as LG, NG, CG? They are the same distance from neutral.
But we know that by their nature, LN and CN are not alignments with a good component. The move in the direction of law and chaos, not good. By that token, wouldn't CG and LG both be "less pure good" because they are also moving in the directions of law and chaos, and not fully towards good?
This is my honest contribution to the discussion, but my brain is running on low sleep, so apologies if it comes off agressive or confrontational. I can barely see right now, but I have to stay awake to watch the baby, so I'm browsing the forums.
Sidenote- I'm in the camp of circle, obviously.
BUT this whole graph thing is not a valid way of arguing it.
I'm a Lawful individual. I like graphs and maths.
Your graph is still inaccurate. If you add other fractional alignments (like from 1E) in between the core alignments, your graph becomes this:
And according to your argument, LN (LG) is *just* as Good as LG, NG, or CG even though LN (LG) is *barely* good at all. Your argument is that "you've traveled the same distance toward Good" simply isn't true. You're still on the Good side of the bar, but just barely.
That is NOT what I am saying, it is what YOU are saying. You have defined something as being more good than another kind of good. Please expand upon THAT concept.
Sure.
A, B, C, D, and E are all Good acts.
A and B are Chaotic acts.
D and E are Lawful acts.
A chaotic good person is willing to do A, B, and C, but not D or E because they're against his personal code of conduct (independence = good, adherence to authority = bad).
A lawful good person is willing to do C, D, and E, but not A or B because they're against his personal code of conduct (adherence to authority = good, independence = bad).
A neutral good person is willing to do A, B, C, D, or E, because he believes in doing Good whether it's Chaotic or Lawful.
The neutral good person is willing to do MORE Good than the chaotic good or lawful good person.
Thus, the neutral good person is more Good than the other two.
Let's look at it the opposite way.
Albert is a thief, but he would never rape or murder someone.
Brent is a thief and a rapist, but would never murder someone.
Clay is a thief, rapist, and a murderer.
Clay is more evil than Brent or Albert because he's willing to commit evil acts the other two would never do.
Brent is less evil than Clay because he's willing to commit fewer evil acts than Clay.
Albert is less evil than Brent or Clay, for obvious reasons. He's still evil, though.
Thus, you can have benchmarks for certain evils being more evil than others. Or certain types of Good being more Good than others.
So... my graph is still valid, you haven't refuted it, your graph is invalid, and your argument based on your graph is likewise invalid.
I'm also done with this discussion, as I seem to have hit a brick wall with you.
|
|
But you can still use it to define the others :)You can't use it to measure the others. You can use the contrast to define the difference between morality and amorality, but not to measure variations in morality. The lion killing the antelope has no standard that applies to my helping granny across the street, versus roasting her stringy self over an open flame for the Fourth of July picnic.
EDIT: Once you understand that evil is the privation of the good, you only need one graph for good/evil. I'll leave law/chaos to someone else, at the moment.
Ugg you don't get it. I obviously am not making myself clear.
Sorry for all that.
You see, if you look at the GRAPHs used earlier to PROVE that NG is more good than LG or CG, what they actually show is that they measure based upon using N as a reference point- that is N defines the graph. They show that each of the goods are equidistant from N, and that ALL alignments have N as a source point.
Therefore, using that graph to show that NG is the more good than LG or CG is incorrect. The argument based upon that graph is incorrect.
Because I can use that same graph and show that NG is NOT better than LG or CG.
Do remember, I did not propose a graph at all as a means to prove something. Another person claimed that the graph proves it.
*I* claim that the graph does NOT prove anything. It can be used to "prove" other things.
See, people are mixing in Philosophy with their geometry. In geometry N can be used to define anything in that graph. But in philosophy it is a fallacy to define something as the absence of something else. Therefore, the graph CANNOT be used as a PROOF that NG is more good than LG or CG.
Am I making myself clearer at all?
I am NOT arguing against NG or whatever. But the argument that made everyone go "WOW" is flawed. THAT is what I am trying to illustrate.
That argument that made everyone go "WOW" doesn't work and needs to be cleaned up not using geometry to argue philosophy.
The concept is there, but the execution is erroneous.
|
|
Your graph is still inaccurate. If you add other fractional alignments (like from 1E) in between the core alignments, your graph becomes this:
I am not arguing 1E. I am discussing the 9 distinct alignments listed in 3.x/PRPG only.
There are only exactly 9 listed. No more. Not in any way shape or form.
Conks Krome on head with giant, Ross Perot-like graph.
Forget the graph. Look at what I'm saying. Look at Sean's examples. What is the problem with those?
|
|
And according to your argument, LN (LG) is *just* as Good as LG, NG, or CG even though LN (LG) is *barely* good at all. Your argument is that "you've traveled the same distance toward Good" simply isn't true. You're still on the Good side of the bar, but just barely.
Nope that is not true at all. Look at that graph again.
LN does not move off of the Neutral axis at all. Tehrefore it has no "goodness"
And I am right, you define Good as ONLY straight up. Rather than out 45 degrees either side as well. It sounds like you are defining and using Good in a linear fashion and applying it in a non linear execution.
So therefore before the graph is even applied you have predefined only one possible outcome. That is arbitrary because I can just as easily predefine Lawful Good as the better form of good, place it at the top of the graph and then say NG is less good, and because CG actually applies chaos into the good it is detracting from the good and not good at all. But since LN is adding order to their ambiguity it is in fact better than CG.
IF we step away from philosophy and just look at the graph, that is correct. The graph proves that is correct. THAT is why the graph does not work.
|
|
Conks Krome on head with giant, Ross Perot-like graph.
Forget the graph. Look at what I'm saying. Look at Sean's examples. What is the problem with those?
lol
because I am the one pointing out the graph does not PROVE the argument.
by saying forget the graph and look at what I am saying you are AGREEING with me!
I am NOT disagreeing that NG is a more good form of good (as far as D&D goes). But using that graph to prove it, and then everyone going "oh yeah he's right," is incorrect.
You can PROVE it with examples.
You cannot prove it with the graph that people said "WOW that makes so much sense." Because the graph itself does NOT in fact prove that. The graph does NOT prove anything.
THAT is what I am saying. You want to prove NG is the better Good, then do so. The graph does not do so. Use examples, words, language, philosophy. But the graph every one was so enamored of does not prove anything. THAT is what I am illustrating.
Then you saying forget the graph illustrates my point.
No, I'm saying forget the graph because when my brain gets tired, I know which portions of it to trust: the verbal/analytical part. I'll think about graphs again when I'm not so tired.
Yoda, don't encourage him!
|
|
Your graph is still inaccurate. If you add other fractional alignments (like from 1E) in between the core alignments, your graph becomes this:
And according to your argument, LN (LG) is *just* as Good as LG, NG, or CG even though LN (LG) is *barely* good at all. Your argument is that "you've traveled the same distance toward Good" simply isn't true. You're still on the Good side of the bar, but just barely.
That is NOT what I am saying, it is what YOU are saying. You have defined something as being more good than another kind of good. Please expand upon THAT concept.Sure.
A, B, C, D, and E are all Good acts.
A and B are Chaotic acts.
D and E are Lawful acts.A chaotic good person is willing to do A, B, and C, but not D or E because they're against his personal code of conduct (independence = good, adherence to authority = bad).
A lawful good person is willing to do C, D, and E, but not A or B because they're against his personal code of conduct (adherence to authority = good, independence = bad).
A neutral good person is willing to do A, B, C, D, or E, because he believes in doing Good whether it's Chaotic or Lawful.
The neutral good person is willing to do MORE Good than the chaotic good or lawful good person.
Thus, the neutral good person is more Good than the other two.Let's look at it the opposite way.
Albert is a thief, but he would never rape or murder someone.
Brent is a thief and a rapist, but would never murder someone.
Clay is a thief, rapist, and a murderer.Clay is more evil than Brent or Albert because he's willing to commit evil acts the other two would never do.
Brent is less evil than Clay because he's willing to commit fewer evil acts than Clay.
Albert is less evil than Brent or Clay, for obvious reasons. He's still evil, though.Thus, you can have benchmarks for certain evils being more evil than others. Or certain...
No Sean, you haven't hit a brick wall with me at all. I will say your graph is valid. But the thing is my graph is also valid. THAT you will not admit.
Is LG, NG, and CG NOT equidistant from N? That is what I am saying about the graph. Am I not right? If I am right then my interpretation of that graph is JUST as valid as yours. Therefore how can that graph prove one argument over another?
Look at it carefully, anyone, and tell me LG, NG, and CG are NOT equidistant from N.
You apply the graph with one predetermined definition. It works that way and I "GET" it. But I CAN apply another predetermined definition to the same graph and it STILL WORKS, but now has a different meaning.
You are saying that along the Y axis is your measurement of Good. Valid.
I am saying measuring away from N is my measurement of Good. Valid.
Both ARE valid definitions. So what does the graph prove?
|
|
Then you saying forget the graph illustrates my point.So you're saying that your right is more right than right? And the graph is wronger than wrong? Can I rotate the axes? Will this be on the test?
lol
nope
I am saying the graph is not wrong at all. But the graph is not right either.
The graph is not black and white (okay it is color-wise lol). Wrong or right? the graph is not the solution because it is neither.
|
|
No, I'm saying forget the graph because when my brain gets tired, I know which portions of it to trust: the verbal/analytical part. I'll think about graphs again when I'm not so tired.
Yoda, don't encourage him!
lol
this is all I ask.
Look at the graph. (BTW Pathfinder ONLY has 9 alignments)
Does NG extend further up to Good?
Is LG, NG, CG equidistant from N?
Answer those two questions and only those two questions.
THEN tell me what does the graph prove.
|
|
A, B, C, D, and E are all Good acts.
A and B are Chaotic acts.
D and E are Lawful acts.A chaotic good person is willing to do A, B, and C, but not D or E because they're against his personal code of conduct (independence = good, adherence to authority = bad).
A lawful good person is willing to do C, D, and E, but not A or B because they're against his personal code of conduct (adherence to authority = good, independence = bad).
A neutral good person is willing to do A, B, C, D, or E, because he believes in doing Good whether it's Chaotic or Lawful.
The neutral good person is willing to do MORE Good than the chaotic good or lawful good person.
Thus, the neutral good person is more Good than the other two.Let's look at it the opposite way.
Albert is a thief, but he would never rape or murder someone.
Brent is a thief and a rapist, but would never murder someone.
Clay is a thief, rapist, and a murderer.Clay is more evil than Brent or Albert because he's willing to commit evil acts the other two would never do.
Brent is less evil than Clay because he's willing to commit fewer evil acts than Clay.
Albert is less evil than Brent or Clay, for obvious reasons. He's still evil, though.Thus, you can have benchmarks for certain evils being more evil than others. Or certain...
*sigh*
Ok, so what you have said, is that NG has more opportunities to do good. Yep absolutely agree. THAT is why I define NG as being more good than LG or CG in D&D. Absolutely NO disagreement there.
Yes you can have benchmarks that some acts of evil are more evil than others. You can also have benchmarks that some acts of good are more good than others.
BUT yes, you can in fact have benchmarks that say all evil is equally evil and all good is equally good. Look at some forms of Christianity. A sin, any sin is evil in the eyes of God, and the wages of sin is death. Whether that sin was lying, stealing, raping or murder, the value is the same.
Does EVERYONE agree with that? Nope. Is the argument any less valid? Nope.
Good and Evil is subjective. There is no clear cut answer to the question unless you are in an absolute position to define everyone's opinions.
Can I see both opinions as valid for that person? Absolutely. Do I see both opinions as correct? Yep I do. Do I see both opinions as being wrong? Yep I do. Welcome to philosophy where there is no right and wrong and everything is either right or wrong. :)
Having given up on SKR and geometry, Krome turns his guns on what he has perceived is M's domain, and blazes away, hoping to provoke a response!
And you are correct...and dead wrong. Now, showing you you are dead wrong can't be done with a graph, and I'm not going to type out a moral philosophy dissertation online while I'm working on an epistemological one. But if we ever meet across a beer or a cup of coffee, remind me, and I'll tell you what all you're wrong about. Just print up that last post, and bring it with you when we meet!
|
|
Having given up on SKR and geometry, Krome turns his guns on what he has perceived is M's domain, and blazes away, hoping to provoke a response!
And you are correct...and dead wrong. Now, showing you you are dead wrong can't be done with a graph, and I'm not going to type out a moral philosophy dissertation online while I'm working on an epistemological one. But if we ever meet across a beer or a cup of coffee, remind me, and I'll tell you what all you're wrong about. Just print up that last post, and bring it with you when we meet!
lol
you got it.
But do remember, if you are open minded, there is more than one answer to many problems. If you are NOT open minded, it doesn't matter discussing it, does it.
As far as this particular threadjack I am done.
Either one is open minded and can see more than black and white, or they can't. If they can't, no amount of effort will open their eyes.
I am afraid it appears many are not open minded and cannot accept any opinion other than their own as valid.
I do listen with an open mind. I challenge you and everyone else to do the same.
EDIT***** BTW I love how no one was ever able to disprove the LG, NG and CG are equidistant from N everyone tried everything to argue otherwise, but could not actually disprove it. lol
Well, I'm open-minded, but I'm also very certain about good v. evil, and I've got some basis upon which to be.
No one should try from neutrality! But we don't have to go down that road again...
So the jar is True Neutral, Tennessee is the alignment system, and the argument is that definitions from a zero-point of TN might or might not be invalid....
See, it all comes back to Wallace Stevens! ;)
Oh dear Lord, don't do that to poetry!
Oh dear Lord, don't do that to poetry!
I thought that was the whole point of English major-y: twisting works of art to support any given thesis.
Oh, I see you were trained in a postmodern department...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
…OK I’ll give this explanation a shot.
The alignment SKR is referring to is the line not the point. Specifically the alignment lines are the functions:
FLG(z) = -0.707zC + 0.707zG
FNG(z) = zG
FCG(z) = 0.707zC + 0.707zG
z = distance from neutrality (z>=0). Call it “zeal” or something.
C = distance along the Chaos axis (negative values indicate Law)
G = distance along the Good axis (negative vales indicate Evil)
For any particular value of z across these functions, FNG(z) will have a higher G value than its counterparts.
However the G index result of FLG(a) can be greater than FNG(b) where a > 1.41b.
Therefore to be as “Good” as a Neutral Good Character, Paladins have to be 41% more zealous with their alignment, which explains a lot about their code of conduct.
|
|
Sorry just have to pop in one more time.
Using SKR's method The most good is along the axis, and not measured from N...
This graph PROVES LG is more good than NG. :)
It uses exactly the method of measurement as SKR's graph.
lol
no seriously look at it and see for yourself.
|
|
I rather like the idea of Sean's graph to illustrate the concept of alignment by comparing Law/Chaos and Good/Evil on a unit scale. It's quite elegant to then decide that the most extreme version of each alignment can be represented with a circle that passes through 1 & -1 on each of the two axes. As mentioned this ends up with every alignment in the most extreme form being equidistant from the origin, which in this case is True Neutral. Under that scenario Neutral Good does indeed extend furthest along the Good axis, Chaotic Neutral extends furthest along the Chaos axis and so on and so forth.
My issue with the representation would be that I'm not convinced that the 8 alignments (discounting True Neutral which is at the centre) should be equidistant from the origin. I'd instead argue for the alignment 'surface' to be a plane going from the coordinate representing most extreme Law & most extreme Evil on Sean's graph [or (-1, -1)], up to the coordinate representing most extreme Chaos & most extreme Good [or (1,1)].
Every person and character will therefore in practice exist philisophically at some point within this plane. Using the plane representation has the side effect of showing that somebody who is the very epitome of Lawful Good is actually further away from True Neutral alignment than somebody who is the epitome of Neutral Good. This rings true to me because the latter two at least agree on the Law/Chaos front if not on the Good/Evil one.
As per Sean's example that I've quoted below it's harder for a more extreme Lawful Good character to exist than a Neutral Good one, which goes along with the idea of true Lawful Good being a more extreme alignment (for example in this example it would be about 1.4 away from the origin at the most extreme, while Neutral Good is still 1 away). This is the very reason why a Paladin can sometimes be challenging to play. As such I would agree that the unit circle would give the most common range of alignments, but I favour the plane representation to illustrate...
Well, yes, but you see SKR's gospel graph does not allow that possibility... So unfortunately we are obviously both wrong. See, SKR's graph shows there is no other way possible to look at alignments. No matter what, NG is ALWAYS the more good. His graph has PROVEN that.
:)
*dripping sarcasm*
Darn good argument though. And I would have absolutely accepted your statement as another valid way of looking at alignments, except SKR's graph does not allow that version. Sorry...
See, another way of explaining my version would be to imagine the alignments as spokes on a wheel. Each version of goodness is measured out from the hub. Just as each version of evil is measured out from the hub. As the wheel rotates it is apparent that all are co-equal/co-dependent because if one were shorter the wheel could not turn.
But alas, SKR's graph has absolutely proven beyond all possible doubt that NG is by far more good than any other.
I did like your system though. Too bad it doesn't work with the gospel of SKR.
It only goes to show... if it's a slow day in any D&D community, start a discussion about alignments, and things will heat up nicely.
Now, the problem here is that everyone (yes, EVERYONE) considers themselves Good. Disregarding the fact that the PHB definition of Good is a bit specific, this means that everyone ALWAYS redefines Good to fit themselves. I.e. if you see no problem with torture to save innocents, you will see that act as a Good act. Same with stealing if the one you're stealing from is rich and you will give the money to people who have less. Good act.
Another consequence of this is that since many feel that Good is about abstaining from things, that you define your Goodness by finding things you do not do. Said torturer above would NEVER consider taking what was not his. The thief would be disgusted with the very idea of causing deliberate pain to another. These two people would without blinking consider one another Evil, and by doing so, they reaffirm their own Goodness.
This leads to every person in this discussion, after defining their own brand of Good, considering every other participant to be dishonest. Some even go so far as to suggest rotating the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos axes to fit better with their own views of their own Goodness.
Going strictly by the book, of course, being Lawful and Chaotic are limits to the tactics you might use. Sometimes using the opposite style would bring more Good, but you won't do it, because that's not what you do. The circle graph is correct. Neutral Good means going for Good no matter the circumstances, and by doing so, you at least get farther than those wishy-washy lawfuls and chaotics.
Of course, I still think the neutral alignments are bogus. Let people show that they believe in Good or Law. If they commit themselves, fine, they are LG, CG or LE. If they don't, they are CE. Yes, this means that every single person who prefers they be seen as LN are really LE. If people understood this, that laws in and of themselves do not make a society, the world would be a better place.
The whole idea of trying to prove one "good" is more "good" than another seems kinda fruitless to me. Trying to create a mathmatical graph of broadly subjective terminology is ummmm well an endeavor of futility. ( IMO of course :) )
I kind of side with Krome on his interpretive graphing.
Being good.. is just that. Good.
How one acheives goodness by Order, Chaos or a mix of the two.. is just methodology.
If one is trying to quantify someone's Good factor... that just seems to be persnickity.
hmm, hope my opinion is "good" enough to be here :(
wasgreg
I'm infinitely chaotic. So chaotic, in fact, that I don't use silly symbols for chaos that don't fit the theme.
There's another graph I really like.
I think that's the best ever made.
|
|
Well I owe everyone an apology. I realized just now I did NOT graph SKR's graph properly. In fact while the points look alike, the measurements differ.
Here then I present 4 versions of alignments.
SKR's (Measuring from the neutral LINE towards goodness) NG is more good
Krome's (Measuring from the neutral POINT towards goodness) all good is equal
I apologize, I was trying to make my graph fit SKR's and that was wrong. Our points on the graph were the same but the methods of measurement were different. Resulting in different interpretations. The problem was I kept thinking his graph was drawn the same as mine.
***EDIT***
From the graphs, choose one, or make your own... they are all equally valid.
I add a fifth graph.
In this example, good-evil and law-chaos are not related at all. They are two different things that exist unconnected to each other.
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."
I can't argue with your the data displayed by your graph, or the fact that by that method NG is certainly true. The testing isn't required, I know how the unit circle works, its a fairly defined bit of mathematics, as such I can't refute it in itself, or use its data to show otherwise.
So by your unit-circle NG is the most good, a solid geometric arguement.
However, my postulation is that describing it on the graph is a false assumption.
It assumes a circular arrangement, and assumes transparent interconnection between the axes, but both of these are assumptions. I'm saying I can't dissprove your graph, but why use it at all.
Why not for example say simply plot the existing grid, a square area with three subsections. Any Value above 1 in any direction is defined as taking the alingment of that direction, for example a > 1 up, > -1, < 1 sideways is a nuetral good.
The Maximum value in any direction is 3, say an arbitrary limit, or definable 'ultimate good/evil/law/chaos'.
A persons alignment is denoted not by a straight line or vector, but by a point position. The point positions location in the grid gives alignment, while its journey to get their, which is unique and path dependant in this case, is their journey through life on moral grounds.
Thus, a person who has travelled through evil to reach 1.5 up is as good as someone who has always been 1.5 up, but can still be described by a checkered past and a repedmption from evil.
Also, a Person with 3 up 3 right is Lawful Good, and a Person with 3 up and 0 right or left is Nuetral Good.
Now here maximum good is equal, so they are both equally good.
This is because, while final position is given by position which is both x and y dependant, the x and y values themselves are seperate, maximum good is not lessened to become maximum law, so the circle dissappears to give a two dimensional shape from two seperate 1D scales or arguments.
X is not Y Dependant, and Y is not X dependant, so maximum values are indepandant, so the grid holds under the assumption that Law/Chaos and Good/Evil are seperate arguements and that there is a maximum Good attainable, and that a persons moral choices can be described in a number of ways, say enslaving another human being is an evil action, but also a lawful action. The end result is lawful evil.
P.S. This does not assume that a greater distance must be travelled to reach LE than NE, because one can take nuetral actions, and path independance exists.
DAMN! We are BOTH in Cheliax?
Spatial location is irrelevant.
Walnut ice cream is tasty.
Good and Evil is subjective. There is no clear cut answer to the question unless you are in an absolute position to define everyone's opinions.
Of course they are not subjective - not in a D&D (or PF) universe. Otherwise, for example, Detect Evil would yield different results if it cast two clerics of opposing deities. I think you're mixing real world ethics with D&D keywords Good and Evil. In D&D there is objective Good. Or do you think otherwise?
In this example, good-evil and law-chaos are not related at all. They are two different things that exist unconnected to each other.
I'm afraid you're missing the point. The good/evil and law/chaos vectors in a multi-dimensional alignment space are either collinear (essentially the same) or not. I guess we all agree that good vs evil is not the same scale than law vs chaos. Thus the two vectors generate a plane (in the multi-dimensional vector space).
Now there again two options - either the vectors are linearly independent or not. I guess you're trying to say they are linearly independent. In which case the two axes form a (standard) basis for the alignment plane we're talking about. That is, you're saying the same as everyone else: it is possible to make a two-dimensional illustration of the PF alignment plane.
(I guess no one is arguing that the two axes, or vectors, in question wouldn't be linearly independent.)
|
|
Good and Evil is subjective. There is no clear cut answer to the question unless you are in an absolute position to define everyone's opinions.Of course they are not subjective - not in a D&D (or PF) universe. Otherwise, for example, Detect Evil would yield different results if it cast two clerics of opposing deities. I think you're mixing real world ethics with D&D keywords Good and Evil. In D&D there is objective Good. Or do you think otherwise?
Yes, there is still subjective good. While in D&D good and evil ARE absolutes as you put it, we get back to this whole argument...
which good is more good? LG, NG or CG?
THAT is certainly subjective even in D&D
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.
Obviously I disagree. I would posit, though, that certain upper-planar beings could be so good, and would operate on such a high moral scale, that their actions would seem chaotic or even evil to a mortal who wasn't anywhere near that level. Which is something akin to your "realm of paradox," except that I can easily envision it. Hell, maybe it's like Pac-Man, you go up past the top of the screen and come out the bottom. But I don't think there's a finish line somewhere in Neutral-Good-Land that says "DONE! There is no more good than this! You are now perfect!"