Grimecleaver's perspective elaborated.
So does the baseline represent a tendency, an ideal, or a basic commitment? Or is it just an average of how the person has rated heretofore? I agree that there needs to be a range of variability before a DM starts to get heavy-handed--this is true to the inconstancy of human behavior. But it is also true that people have commitments and values that dictate how they should act.
I like the idea but in your opinion, what about the Paladin? How far would a paladin be allowed to fluctuate? Or does it depend on their median and no evil acts?
I'd probably run any of the alignment sensitive classes that they aren't able to get the benefits of the class while they're running under a prohibited alignment--and in the case of religious characters, it usually requires some act of contrition on their part--prayer and repentance.
The longer one strays in forbidden paths--the harder it is to find your way back, and some acts stain the soul more deeply than others (so no worshipping Demogorgon, you naughty paladin!)
I like the idea but in your opinion, what about the Paladin? How far would a paladin be allowed to fluctuate? Or does it depend on their median and no evil acts?I'd probably run any of the alignment sensitive classes that they aren't able to get the benefits of the class while they're running under a prohibited alignment--and in the case of religious characters, it usually requires some act of contrition on their part--prayer and repentance.
The longer one strays in forbidden paths--the harder it is to find your way back, and some acts stain the soul more deeply than others (so no worshipping Demogorgon, you naughty paladin!)
I like. It makes mind games a nasty weapon. You cant access your godly powers Mr Paladin till you cool down and regain your calm.
I like. It makes mind games a nasty weapon. You cant access your godly powers Mr Paladin till you cool down and regain your calm.
Isn't it great? I mean it's a careful line to tread between making alignment a free-wheeling change-by-the-round kind of thing where people get to be Lawful Good and yet do whatever they want, and the heavy hammer that DMs use to make their players act the way they want them to. Hence I'm a little skittish about using this kind of alignment as a way to yank someone's paladinhood (or...monkhood? barbarianhood?) or whatever--but I totally dig the idea of a rough repentance process that corresponds to the magnitude of the misdeeds and a genuine change of attitude.
Like I said though, all the credit goes to James Jacobs for this one.
So does the baseline represent a tendency, an ideal, or a basic commitment? Or is it just an average of how the person has rated heretofore? I agree that there needs to be a range of variability before a DM starts to get heavy-handed--this is true to the inconstancy of human behavior. But it is also true that people have commitments and values that dictate how they should act.
I'd say yes.
Some combination of all of the above. Certainly it starts as what you label your character at the beginning of play, which certainly comes a lot from all of those things. I'd argue tendencies and previous actions weigh in pretty high. But how you weigh an ideal or a commitment to a cause is something that's hard to be objective about--it probably says more about the guy making the call than it does about the nature of ideals and commitments. Me personally, I'd say the ideals and commitments are what stand between the paladin and the temptation. Once temptation starts kicking in, it's a sign some ideals have already slipped. Often the codes we follow are like a guardrail to keep us on the safe side and are placed well in advance of the actual danger. That said, everyone has troubles upholding their code--it's what makes characters of faith such an interesting part of D&D gaming.
Nuetral is the most abused alignment.
It's the interpretation that one can do whatever one wants based upon nuetrality that causes the problem - i.e. "I'll pick the alignment that gives me the most freedom".
Sounds like the PC needs a shift to either NE or CN. Doing whatever one wants at any given time would suggest chaos IMO.
Perhaps the DM could enforce an Good/Evil to get some. It helps me to consider that most animal types are Nuetral. They kill to eat but do not otherwise do anything malicious.
Imagine a Druid who defends the forest no matter who the opponent or threat is.
|
I tend to play neutral (unaligned) as a default alignment - where altrustic people are good, and evil people aren't necessarily fiends, but will do anything necessary to advance their interests with little regard to the consequences.
I can see neutral doing what is convenvient - but not necessarily good or evil. A neutral person would not generally commit murder except for extreme circumstances as that's clearly evil and out of the bounds for polite society. The same person wouldn't necessarily go out of their way to help the poor unless their was something in it for them - and may even be a bit cruel to strangers. For issues like slavery, or swearing an oaths, they'd probably lean the way their culture views is correct most of the time - though they're not as tied to the 'law' or norms.
This person may not keep thier word to someone they don't know - since they're not lawful, but is probably not out to use someone either and will kept their word in most cases (if only to protect their reputation rather than because they value thier word) and will not betray people they consider friends except in extreme circumstances.
A neutral (unaligned) person is likely to help out if it's doesn't hurt them, they think they can get something out of it, or it's for the community good where they value the community.
Murder, particularly without 'cause' is a hallmark of evil as even in 'evil' societies murder is rarely rampant - I'd suggest that anyone who regularly commits murder is evil, regardless of cause.
At pointed out previously, most neutral people will end up picking a side in a fantasy world where good and evil are much clearly defined than they are in our world.
Many of the posters here seem to equate Nuetrality as being a selfish/narcissistic alignment - even quite harsh. Is this the case?
Surely there's more to it than getting whatever they want out of any given situation.
I equate neutral with amoral, not immoral (evil).
I've got some more thoughts that I will try and add later. Krome...
Many of the posters here seem to equate Nuetrality as being a selfish/narcissistic alignment - even quite harsh. Is this the case?
Surely there's more to it than getting whatever they want out of any given situation.
Generally it's about this IMO. Like most people you'll meet in life, they'll treat their family and friends well, and everyone else based on what is convenient. They'll say things like "Bomb them for attacking us" without considering the ramifications of the original attack or their retaliatory strike. Given reasons as to why something else might be a better choice of action they'll go with it about 50% of the time. The other 50% their spite gets the best of them and they go with their original "Hurt them for hurting us" routine.
They'll pay taxes if they think they have too, complaining the entire time then eat up any and all government assistance they can thinking to "get my share". If they think they can get by without paying taxes they will, simply to save the money for things they want.
Basically people are animals and will act as such unless they have a better or worse nature than normal... in which case they're probably a step about the rest of the ramble.
Many of the posters here seem to equate Nuetrality as being a selfish/narcissistic alignment - even quite harsh. Is this the case?
Surely there's more to it than getting whatever they want out of any given situation.
Generally it's about this IMO. Like most people you'll meet in life, they'll treat their family and friends well, and everyone else based on what is convenient. They'll say things like "Bomb them for attacking us" without considering the ramifications of the original attack or their retaliatory strike. Given reasons as to why something else might be a better choice of action they'll go with it about 50% of the time. The other 50% their spite gets the best of them and they go with their original "Hurt them for hurting us" routine.
They'll pay taxes if they think they have too, complaining the entire time then eat up any and all government assistance they can thinking to "get my share". If they think they can get by without paying taxes they will, simply to save the money for things they want.
Basically people are animals and will act as such unless they have a better or worse nature than normal... in which case they're probably a step about the rest of the ramble.
Well, making the assumption that people are animals, you'd have to be right as animals as previously stated are neutral in the DnD game. However, I think there's many ppl out there who'd disagree that people are animals - but that's another debate........:)
|
I equate neutral with amoral, not immoral (evil).
I've got some more thoughts that I will try and add later. Krome...
lol what!?!
and no graphs!
I'm just enjoying the dialogue. I see all sides of the issue and will claim none in particular. I will remain neutral.
Unless someone wants to claim that a graph proves Neutral is the most good.
lol
|
|
I suppose my only real thought is that I agree Neutral is the most difficult to play. It is an alignment that is essentially defined by the absence of some other moral or ethical definition. It is pretty hard to play something that is almost without definition.
I suppose, rather than immoral, or amoral, I think I would call it apathetic.
Regardless, it is terribly difficult to define, let alone play.
Honestly, I really don't have much more to add. I can point at LG, NG, CE, NE, LN, CN etc, and recognize the characteristics of the behavior. But I can't really do that with N.
So chat away. I'm learning a lot here.
Many of the posters here seem to equate Nuetrality as being a selfish/narcissistic alignment - even quite harsh. Is this the case?
Surely there's more to it than getting whatever they want out of any given situation.
Generally it's about this IMO. Like most people you'll meet in life, they'll treat their family and friends well, and everyone else based on what is convenient. They'll say things like "Bomb them for attacking us" without considering the ramifications of the original attack or their retaliatory strike. Given reasons as to why something else might be a better choice of action they'll go with it about 50% of the time. The other 50% their spite gets the best of them and they go with their original "Hurt them for hurting us" routine.
They'll pay taxes if they think they have too, complaining the entire time then eat up any and all government assistance they can thinking to "get my share". If they think they can get by without paying taxes they will, simply to save the money for things they want.
Basically people are animals and will act as such unless they have a better or worse nature than normal... in which case they're probably a step about the rest of the ramble.
So in your opinion, the vast majority of the population is True Neutral? I don't know if I can agree with that, as the experience of the gaming community seems to be that it's the rarest of alignments. Besides, I'd be more likely to categorize the above as Neutral Evil -- looking out for Number One, taking actions to maximize their own good without considering the well-being of others.
In my opinion, it's not fruitful to try to map alignment from the game to people in the real world. It's an abstraction - predominantly useful for enabling magical effects which target certain people and not others. In reality we dont have an alignment, any more than we have hit points.
Consequently, arguments based on how people behave in reality are always going to fail to translate completely when attempting to define the alignments. (In the same way that, in D and D - if you want to kill an expert scholar with a sword, you have to hit him more times than when he was a trainee scribe. It's pretty hard to plausibly explain that feature of the game based on how the real world works).
|
|
In my opinion, it's not fruitful to try to map alignment from the game to people in the real world. It's an abstraction - predominantly useful for enabling magical effects which target certain people and not others. In reality we dont have an alignment, any more than we have hit points.
Consequently, arguments based on how people behave in reality are always going to fail to translate completely when attempting to define the alignments. (In the same way that, in D and D - if you want to kill an expert scholar with a sword, you have to hit him more times than when he was a trainee scribe. It's pretty hard to plausibly explain that feature of the game based on how the real world works).
Lots of fat to pad the meat... D&D people are like Americans... a bit round about the middle! lol
So in your opinion, the vast majority of the population is True Neutral? I don't know if I can agree with that, as the experience of the gaming community seems to be that it's the rarest of alignments. Besides, I'd be more likely to categorize the above as Neutral Evil -- looking out for Number One, taking actions to maximize their own good without considering the well-being of others.
It doesn't really have much to do with what the players choose. Of course, as a DM, you could make a society or simply declare that the standard person in your world is alignment X unless otherwise noted. In general, assuming we try to model as much of the real world as we can in our games, at least when it comes to social interactions (I think everyone knows my stance on bringing the sciences into the game); then you aren't likely to have a nation/continent/world where EVERYONE is LG or CN or NE or whatever.
Nevertheless, while that is an unlikely situation, it still ultimately comes down to the DM to say what the default alignment of people in their world should be. Many/most will slot it as True Neutral. In that sense, it doesn't matter if all of your PCs are always LG or CE; they don't reflect the norm of the game world around them.
Likewise, the "fact" that most people are N doesn't really have any bearing on the PC in question. I, along with most (all?) other posters thus far agree he's Neutral Evil (or something other than True Neutral, at least).
So in your opinion, the vast majority of the population is True Neutral? I don't know if I can agree with that, as the experience of the gaming community seems to be that it's the rarest of alignments. Besides, I'd be more likely to categorize the above as Neutral Evil -- looking out for Number One, taking actions to maximize their own good without considering the well-being of others.It doesn't really have much to do with what the players choose. Of course, as a DM, you could make a society or simply declare that the standard person in your world is alignment X unless otherwise noted. In general, assuming we try to model as much of the real world as we can in our games, at least when it comes to social interactions (I think everyone knows my stance on bringing the sciences into the game); then you aren't likely to have a nation/continent/world where EVERYONE is LG or CN or NE or whatever.
Nevertheless, while that is an unlikely situation, it still ultimately comes down to the DM to say what the default alignment of people in their world should be. Many/most will slot it as True Neutral. In that sense, it doesn't matter if all of your PCs are always LG or CE; they don't reflect the norm of the game world around them.
Likewise, the "fact" that most people are N doesn't really have any bearing on the PC in question. I, along with most (all?) other posters thus far agree he's Neutral Evil (or something other than True Neutral, at least).
I was just quibbling with Abraham Spaulding's definition of Neutral, in the first place because it's selfish enough to spill into Neutral Evil and in the second place because Neutral =/= the norm, despite its position in the middle of the alignment scale (or graph, Krome ;) ). Alignment isn't a bell curve.
Then again, if you include the-unexamined-life in Neutral, maybe it is the norm/largest group. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced 3.x has tried to include too many things in the definition of Neutral. As written, True Neutral can mean almost anything between extreme Good and extreme Evil or extreme Law and extreme Chaos. It almost takes us into 4e territory: Lawful Good, Good, Chaotic Evil & Unaligned.
It almost takes us into 4e territory: Lawful Good, Good, Chaotic Evil & Unaligned.
Frankly, I think Unaligned is a fine substitute for Neutral.
I also disagree that Abraham Spaulding's definition of neutral comes into Neutral Evil territory in any significant way. A little self-centeredness is fine all the way up the good scale.Let's look at it this way: if a character really is kind to his family and friends/immediate community, cheats on his taxes, bilks strangers out of a little extra money at the shop or leaves them out in the cold when resources are tight, or even supports a war in response to a provocative incident without reflecting on the ramifications of his support - that's not very evil. I'd say it's hardly worth the label, maybe even demeans the meaning of it.
Some friends of mine really dislike the law/chaos axis. If one was of this mind, one could then use good/evil to denote orientation/commitment/valuation, and then interpret the law/chaos axis not in the traditional way, but thus: if one was lawful, then one was consistent or adherent to one's alignment, if one was neutral, then one was average in one consistency, and if one was chaotic, one was poor in one's adherence. The terms would then function to measure the variability issue discussed in this thread.
Thus one would get something like the much discussed continuum of goodness/wickedness:
LG - NG - CG - CE - NE - LE
I think it's rather obvious how this would set some traditional assumptions on their head, but it is rational and perhaps of interest to some. It leaves some issues regarding neutrality untreated, but I think (following my understanding) it would proceed thus: One cannot be neutrally aligned, but perhaps one can be unaligned. If you are not aligned to anything outside one's self, then you are at least narcissistic, if not sociopathic or psychopathic. This is not a moral neutrality, but a moral failing. Depending on the intensity, it will draw one down the continuum above. So if one is rational, one is aligned. Animals and impersonal forces are an obvious exception. "Alien" might be, but it would require either a lot of assuming (to cover up impossibility) or a lot of explaining. Which I kind of hope could be done, given my love of the traditional picture of the fey, but I will leave to others, since I am not sure how to get that off the ground.) In sum, true neutral/unaligned, LN and CN would be impossible alignments in such a schema, and you'd be down to the six above.
I fear that the above is a bit terse, but hopefully understandable.
ADD: Just a thought, given the raising of the question of what is the most average alignment. Given this schema, wouldn't CG and CE be the most common alignments? The assumption being that most people do not consistently govern their behavior by their ultimate commitments or values, but by the dictates of the moment and the path of least resistance. LG and LE would be the least common -- the alignment contiuum would fall out on a bell curve.
|
I would agree with an above poster who said that Neutral is in many ways the default alignment for average people. They go about their business unconcerned with good or evil in any larger sense. They look out for themselves, and are generally disinterested in anything going outside their immediate circle.
And yet it is the most difficult alignment to roleplay as a PC.
This is not the paradox that it appears to be. By their nature, PC's cannot be unconcerned with the outside world. They are constantly thrust into life and death situations, struggles between cosmic forces, wars, apocolapses, and so on. The situations in which PC's find themselves make it very difficult not to choose sides. In fact, the people who are drawn to an adventuring life would be those with a broader worldview and strong convictions. Those with narrow worldviews who lack conviction have little motivation to leave their home village.
Correcting imbalances of ... good
Not to pick on anyone or be too belligerent, but I'm going to repeat: the "balance" mentality is false. It does not work.
If something which is labelled good can be out of "balance" and causing problems, then it is not really good to begin with. Rather, the person seeking balance is seeking bring around some greater good. Therefore, the balance becomes good. Anything which is truly good will seek that, and not the false good.
So, either the things which D&D labels good aren't really good; or those seeking "balance" aren't really performing a good and are committing a logical/moral fallacy. Either way, the purported "balance" mentality falls apart. I seriously detest it.
The only time I can see a "balance" mentality working is in the case of, say, a druid (for whom the mentality was almost explicitly created) who cares about the preservation of a patch of wilderness and doesn't care who threatens it or how said druid goes about contiuing to protect it. Even here, the word "balance" only applies because we're talking about an ecosystem, and may not be the most appropriate. Rather, the druid is attached to a particularl place (essentially an object) rather than a philosophy, and is amorally defending said object. So even here, the "balance" mentality may not truly exist, but rather just be an apathy towards good versus evil, order versus chaos; the amoral, unalignedness discussed above.
I heartily welcome someone to tell me I'm wrong, because right now, I just cannot wrap my mind around this whole "balance" thing as any kind of truth.
|
So in your opinion, the vast majority of the population is True Neutral? I don't know if I can agree with that, as the experience of the gaming community seems to be that it's the rarest of alignments. Besides, I'd be more likely to categorize the above as Neutral Evil -- looking out for Number One, taking actions to maximize their own good without considering the well-being of others.
I don't see how this is evil. Looking out for number one is selfish, yes, but that doesn't imply evil. A lack of regard for others isn't evil, in fact I find it to be quite the opposite. Someone who is evil *actively* seeks the harm of others, not just passively.
Correcting imbalances of ... goodNot to pick on anyone or be too belligerent, but I'm going to repeat: the "balance" mentality is false. It does not work.
*Deconstruction of "balance"*
Saern, you're being too rational in your approach to the discussion of alignment, so let me balance that out a bit for you.
Goo-goo fish-heads; Colbert dusts boardcard. Poop.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Not to pick on anyone or be too belligerent, but I'm going to repeat: the "balance" mentality is false. It does not work.
I agree... the 'balance mentality' is more likely to reside in someone of Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil alignment, as that strict adherence to balance tends to be incredibly narrow in scope and harshly implemented.
And the vast majority of the NPCs in the world should ring up as Neutral. Most people are content to live their lives, doing what they can to survive, not dedicated to anything larger than themselves, and in some cases, their small circle of friends and family. That sounds awfully like animal behavior to me.
The PCs are exceptional, in stats, in their worldview, and their ambition to change their circumstances. Most PCs are not Neutral.
Not to pick on anyone or be too belligerent, but I'm going to repeat: the "balance" mentality is false. It does not work.If something which is labelled good can be out of "balance" and causing problems, then it is not really good to begin with. Rather, the person seeking balance is seeking bring around some greater good. Therefore, the balance becomes good. Anything which is truly good will seek that, and not the false good.
So, either the things which D&D labels good aren't really good; or those seeking "balance" aren't really performing a good and are committing a logical/moral fallacy. Either way, the purported "balance" mentality falls apart. I seriously detest it.
The only time I can see a "balance" mentality working is in the case of, say, a druid (for whom the mentality was almost explicitly created) who cares about the preservation of a patch of wilderness and doesn't care who threatens it or how said druid goes about contiuing to protect it. Even here, the word "balance" only applies because we're talking about an ecosystem, and may not be the most appropriate. Rather, the druid is attached to a particularl place (essentially an object) rather than a philosophy, and is amorally defending said object. So even here, the "balance" mentality may not truly exist, but rather just be an apathy towards good versus evil, order versus chaos; the amoral, unalignedness discussed above.
I heartily welcome someone to tell me I'm wrong, because right now, I just cannot wrap my mind around this whole "balance" thing as any kind of truth.
I concur. I really don't like neutral as 'balance' more just a lack of focus on that issue (usually by being obsessed with another issue).
If you wish, please give me your thoughts as to the Definitions of the Neutral Alignments I use:LN- Lawful Neutral, "Order"
A Lawful Neutral character believes that an orderly world is a perfect world. A Lawful Neutral character is so focused on order and organization that they do not pay attention to the issue of good vs. evil. They act as law, tradition, or a personal code directs them. They may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or they may believe in order for all and favour a strong, organized government. Lawful Neutral characters will attempt to follow local laws and customs except when they believe them to be illegitimate or there is a conflict with the characters own code, traditions or laws. Even if they break the law they will often accept the punishment for breaking that law.
NG- Neutral Good, "Hope"
A Neutral Good character is concerned with good. They are so focused on performing good that they do not pay attention to the issue of law or chaos. They try to do the most good a person can do. They are devoted to helping others.
N- True Neutral, "Undecided"
True Neutral reflects someone who has enough moral strength to resist evil, but not enough to go through the effort of actually being good. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. True Neutral characters usually still prefer associating with good over evil.
Sometimes, ‘undecided’ True Neutral characters might be referred to as just ‘Neutral’. True Neutral characters rarely have the drive to become adventurers.
CN- Chaotic Neutral, "Anarchy"
A Chaotic Neutral character is an individualist. A Chaotic Neutral character is so focused on their own personal freedom that they do not pay attention to the issue of good vs. evil. They value their own liberty but don’t strive to protect or negate others’ freedom. They avoid authority, resent restrictions, and challenge traditions. A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable to others, but they act rationally. Their behaviour is not random, nor so short-sighted as to be blatantly self-destructive. A Chaotic Neutral character does what they please, 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.
NE- Neutral Evil, "All about me"
A Neutral Evil character does whatever she can get away with. A Neutral Evil character doesn’t care about others’ personal freedom or traditions, and is not opposed to personal routines. They usually only care about themselves and what they can get away with doing (at whatever cost) to benefit themselves.
It almost takes us into 4e territory: Lawful Good, Good, Chaotic Evil & Unaligned.
Our group has been having a lot of fun with 4e alignment. We renamed the different alignments (interesting to note, the names we used were the names they came up with for them in the 3.0 PHB)
Unaligned
Same as always, unaligned people have yet to come to a hard spot in the road where they have to choose an alignment. They are usually good hearted regular folks who invite friends to dinner, but might cut in line at the general store.
Benefactor (Good)
These are people who have had to make a choice between closing off their lives to the suffering and hardship in the world, and have chosen instead to devote themselves to helping, nurturing, healing and counciling those who suffer at genuine hardship to themselves, forsaking their own benefit to a certain degree.
Crusader (L. Good)
These folks have had to make a choice between watching the sick and injured keep pouring in while they stay safe and warm trying to pick up the peices, but instead have chosen to take the fight to the enemies of the good people they've decided to help. They're a little extreme sometimes and their militant views can make people uncomfortable--but when the town starts to go to heck, they're the ones with swords drawn charging in the opposite direction of those who are running away.
Dominator (Evil)
These guys have made a choice too. They've decided that the only way to get anything they want is to push through and get it by any means necessary, even if that means hurting those in their path. Ruthless and ambitious, they seek to change the world to their way of thinking, removing enemies and obstacles with precision and malice. To them, everyone is fighting for the same handful of resources and those that bow their heads meekly will never deserve the prize--and are only going to get taken advantage of.
Destroyer (C. Evil)
At some point, these people have made a choice that the world as it is isn't worth having. People are sheep. Institutions are pathetic. Either there's something better that can be made from the world, or the delicious sound of silence coming from the end of everything is just too enticing to ignore. They desire carnage, chaos, and destruction. All of them are bitter and angry, some of them are hurt by the world, some of them are just too disapointed and disgusted with everything in their lives to want anything anymore.
It's a fun breakdown, especially when you start using it with the media to try and fit different famous characters to the different alignments (Sepharoth is the iconic Destroyer, for example).
stuffs
I agree it isn't a bell curve however selfishness isn't the same as maliciousness. Being selfish means simply caring about yours. You still care which means you do good things, just not for everyone -- only 'yours' (in whatever form that may take) gets your time and attention. You don't go out with the thought "I'm going to get what I want by hurting others even if unnecessary or if I can get it without doing so", or "I don't care what it costs me, I'm going to help everyone else." (stupid good)
Generally the Neutral person will follow the path of least resistance. Hurting others isn't the path of least resistance, people tend to object to being hurt, and struggle against it, meaning it takes more energy. Does this mean a neutral person will not hurt someone for what he wants? No, but it won't be his primary means of achieving his goals if he has something he considers necessary and the person doesn't see any means of getting it relatively easily without hurting someone else he will probably still go for it.
However again, selfishness steps in here some as well. "Enlightened Self interest" will tell the person that if he hurts someone else to get what he wants, someone else might hurt him to get what they want. In order to avoid this he joins the "social contract" of not hurting others to get what he wants. In return people don't hurt him to get theirs. This is policed by whoever has been given the enforcement tasks of the contract (In modern society it is generally the government).
If you wish, please give me your thoughts as to the Definitions of the Neutral Alignments I use
I like what you've written there, particularly for the description of Neutral Good. I hadn't really thought of it in terms of your descriptor, "Hope," but I like that as a single word to sum it up above and beyond the other two good alignments.
Our group has been having a lot of fun with 4e alignment.
Very interesting. You could almost replace alignment all together in favor of personality types. Of course, simply being a "crusader" doesn't necessarily mean you stick to good; but it's an intriguing alternate take.
One of the assumptions/sacred cows of traditional D&D seems to treat all alignments more or less equally, no one being superior over the other. I prefer a world-view that conflates law and good, while simultaneously placing together chaos and evil. The two concepts are destinct, but they have a correlation. Law (order) builds nations and societies, which most (player races, at least) are going to desire and consider good. Chaos, on the other hand, threatens to tear that down and plunge everyone into anarchy and destruction, which would be evil. There are a number of successful game worlds (the Elder Scrolls leaps to mind) where the moral delimmas are as much law vs. chaos as good vs. evil, and while not inextricably bound together, the respective concepts are linked.
Saern, you're being too rational in your approach to the discussion of alignment, so let me balance that out a bit for you.
Goo-goo fish-heads; Colbert dusts boardcard. Poop.
Oooooh, okay. Now it all makes sense. Thanks!
If you wish, please give me your thoughts as to the Definitions of the Neutral Alignments I useI like what you've written there, particularly for the description of Neutral Good. I hadn't really thought of it in terms of your descriptor, "Hope," but I like that as a single word to sum it up above and beyond the other two good alignments.
Good point. You made me rethink my summary of NE.
NE- Neutral Evil, “Pessimism”
A Neutral Evil character understands that everyone in the world is out for themselves. A Neutral Evil character does whatever she can get away with and they often don’t care about others’ personal freedom or traditions, and they are not opposed to personal routines. They care about themselves above others and do what they can get away with to benefit themselves.
I don't see how this is evil. Looking out for number one is selfish, yes, but that doesn't imply evil. A lack of regard for others isn't evil, in fact I find it to be quite the opposite. Someone who is evil *actively* seeks the harm of others, not just passively.
To play devil's advocate (and to quote Boondock Saints... well, mostly just to quote Boondock Saints): "...there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men"
|
|
Read the plot of some of the Dragonlance novels like the "Twins Trilogy", the domination of Istar is a reflection of the overbalance of "good" to wit what is defined as "good" in the game again, not real life. The point is the domination of any single point of view can lead to an unbalanced world
A more recent example are the Spectrum Wars leading up to "Darkest Night" in the Green Lantern series. It may very well turn out that the most dangerous Rings are the Blue and Violet of Hope and Love.
On another thought here's an example Suppose your concept of Triumphant Good is the elimination of all killing. After disarming man, you elminate all predators from the planet... result massive ecological imbalance. The balance of predator and prey is a healthy one for the planet but not really an issue of "Good".
Then the issue isn't that there is too much Good, the issue is that those who are supposed to be "good" are misguided and causing harm. Thus restoring the balance is a "good" act, because those who were previously the forces of "good" are failing to uphold the common welfare, and have become at best neutral.
I'm with Saern on this one.
|
I would tell the offending person to change their alignment to neutral (evil tendencies). If they continued down that path, they would become NE.
I do like the alignment system from the Book of Divine Might.
Where you have numeric values from 1(slightly) to 9(fanatical) for your 2 chosen alignments. There is no True Neutral, you have to have at least a 1 in C or L and a 1 in E or G.
So a true Neutral might be a C1G1 or an L1E1. To gain benefits or penatlies and to register as evil/lawful/good/chaotic you have to have at least a 3. A Paladin might be a L5G3 if he follows a god of law, or a L3G6 if he follows a Good god, or if he's Lawful Stupid, he might be a L7G7. Demons would be C9E7-9, Devils L6-9E7-9, daemons would be c/L1,E9.
The far ends of the spectrum are fanatics.
I think this aligment system is great, and it allows easy shifting by the DM.
DM to the "neutral" player commiting evil acts. "Move your alignment to C1G1 to C1E1 please, as your recent actions have shown your true nature."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you talking about the prophecy? The one who is supposed to bring balance to the force?" AKA destroying the jedi order and only leaving a few Jedi to fight a few Sith...balance...good job guys!!
|
|
This is really an interesting discussion. I do think it's hard to compare alignment where things are more complex or grey. In the game world, things are more clear cut in most cases.
The forces of evil are tangible - and even cartoonish by our standards if you look at fiends, undead, evil deities, elder entitie and drow. Evil corrupts - and the forces of evil in many cases are actively trying to destroy the world, or at least enslave it. If you do evil things repeatedly - you're likely to come to the notice of some greater evil and fall under it's influence.
The forces of good are trying to counteract this - even on a micro scale by valuing life and working for the betterment of all. These people actively go out of their way to help those in need... Good can lead to intolerance - but this could also be the subtle corruption of good as well. Good people have a strong moral compass -- there are models like Celestials and deities interfere or manifest themselves indirectly into the world on a daily basis on command, and it's not necessarily what passes as 'good' in our world - where likely every culture views themselves as good.
The forces of neutrality either reject this worldview, or haven't aligned themselves preferring to keep their heads down. No rational actor is going to favor 'evil' unless they are under it's influence - though many evil people probably started out as neutral and walked down the path toward the 'darkside.'
I think their are a lot of downtrodden people in the world who are neutral simply because they want to avoid notice, or don't feel like they can make a difference.
My point is that a fantasy world is going to be a lot more black and white than our world because the stakes are very clear... and while not every action is going to be completely consistent with the choosen alignment it should be pretty clear for those that are truly good or evil as to which side they are on.
I don't think that neutral makes sense for adventurers in most cases as they're going to be asked to take sides by nature of their lifestyle. Do they destroy the demon threatening the village? Or try to gain it's favor? Do they interfere with the slavers cult, or do they let the slavers buy them off?
The 'True Neutral' prespective seems goofy to me. Yes - extreme good could be too limiting - but realistically the very real threats of Golarion being dragged toward the Abyss; or runelords, spawn of the dark gods, or fiends dominating the nations of the world would seem to be a larger problems in the scheme of the post-Aroden world than some city being overly orderly and charitable.
I was just quibbling with Abraham Spaulding's definition of Neutral, in the first place because it's selfish enough to spill into Neutral Evil and in the second place because Neutral =/= the norm, despite its position in the middle of the alignment scale (or graph, Krome ;) ). Alignment isn't a bell curve.
So much of this depends on how you yourself interpret/define alignment and how much energy you want to put into imagining how the real world fits into it. Personally I think most people have Good intentions and think they are Good but don't actually do enough to be Good, and are therefore Neutral. But other people define Goodness much more by intent than by action, so by their logic most people are Good and only the rare psychopath is Evil.
Out of curiosity, how do you interpret/define Good, Neutral and Evil?
Read the plot of some of the Dragonlance novels like the "Twins Trilogy", the domination of Istar is a reflection of the overbalance of "good" to wit what is defined as "good" in the game again, not real life. The point is the domination of any single point of view can lead to an unbalanced world
A more recent example are the Spectrum Wars leading up to "Darkest Night" in the Green Lantern series. It may very well turn out that the most dangerous Rings are the Blue and Violet of Hope and Love.
On another thought here's an example Suppose your concept of Triumphant Good is the elimination of all killing. After disarming man, you elminate all predators from the planet... result massive ecological imbalance. The balance of predator and prey is a healthy one for the planet but not really an issue of "Good".
Then the issue isn't that there is too much Good, the issue is that those who are supposed to be "good" are misguided and causing harm. Thus restoring the balance is a "good" act, because those who were previously the forces of "good" are failing to uphold the common welfare, and have become at best neutral.
I'm with Saern on this one.
Thanks, CH.
Dragonlance is what I cut my fantasy/D&D teeth on, and I will love it forever. That being said, there is a big logical fallacy in it about all that balance stuff. So, yes, I'm familiar with it, but I also strongly disagree with it.
When it comes to "what the game defines as evil" versus what we define as evil, that can be a tricky line to walk (and sometimes leads to things like the BoVD and BoED, which makes some people, myself included, want to vomit). Something to keep in mind, however, is that the game must have a basis in logic, or else it all falls apart and there is no common point of reference. So, the difference between what the game defines as good and what we may define as good, or any other moral/ethical quality, can only differ so much.
Finally wrapped my head around this enough to comment.
My druid is N. She has been tough to play in this regard. She is indifferent at times in her acts, views animals and people equally (to the chagrin of some other players), and focuses more on the big picture instead of herself. More of a perspective issue. I'm only a small part of something much larger.
Not sure if that helps the discussion, or if I described it well enough.
|
|
Same here. I used to have a guy who would only play a character that took vow of poverty. Geuss who doesn't play with us anymore...
Those books have some broken rules in them...
Vow of Poverty is outlawed in my games!!!
Wow, that's lame...he just left the group since you didn't allow him to use it any more?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think Soundgarden's "My Wave" probably sums up the neutral perspective best:
Take, if you want a slice
If you want a piece
If it feels alright
Break, if you like the sound
If it gets you up
If it brings you down
Share, if it makes you sleep
If it sets you free
If it helps you breathe
Dont come over here
And piss on my gate
Save it just keep it
Off my wave
Cry, if you want to cry
If it helps you see
If it clears your eyes
Hate, if you want to hate
If it keeps you safe
If it makes you brave
Pray, if you want to pray
If you like to kneel
If you like to lay
Dont come over here
And piss on my gate
Save it just keep it
Off my wave
Keep it off my wave
...
Those books have some broken rules in them...Vow of Poverty is outlawed in my games!!!
We don't have any characters with that feat but it looks like a pretty good one to have. I've always thought about taking it. My question is: Is it to powerful? Like I said, nobody's ever took it so I don't know the gaming effects it has.
(Sorry for the threadjack but I am curious to know the issues with this feat)
VoP is only powerful if you're playing in a low-item game. Under standard D&D assumptions, it's pretty tame. The real issue with VoP is that if everybody doesn't have it, some players are playing "Kill monsters and then loot their cool bling" while other players are just playing "Kill monsters." I think James Jacobs wrote an eloquent post about this a couple years ago.
Those books have some broken rules in them...Vow of Poverty is outlawed in my games!!!
We don't have any characters with that feat but it looks like a pretty good one to have. I've always thought about taking it. My question is: Is it to powerful? Like I said, nobody's ever took it so I don't know the gaming effects it has.
(Sorry for the threadjack but I am curious to know the issues with this feat)
Depends on who takes it and what you let them get away with. It does offer most of the benefits of magical items, however you also don't get those items, however you also get a bunch of bonus feats, some of which are very nice.
It was supposed to help enforce more "good" and "enlightened" role playing... but then we all know how well that works.
VoP is only powerful if you're playing in a low-item game. Under standard D&D assumptions, it's pretty tame. The real issue with VoP is that if everybody doesn't have it, some players are playing "Kill monsters and then loot their cool bling" while other players are just playing "Kill monsters." I think James Jacobs wrote an eloquent post about this a couple years ago.
Good memory. My wife just sent that very post to me about 20 minutes ago to my email. Very interesting stuff.
Depends on who takes it and what you let them get away with. It does offer most of the benefits of magical items, however you also don't get those items, however you also get a bunch of bonus feats, some of which are very nice.It was supposed to help enforce more "good" and "enlightened" role playing... but then we all know how well that works.
I thought about giving it to this cleric I was running with 3 other paladins. He's concentrates on keeping the party alive more than anything else. Basically heal and defensive spells. Not a combat cleric at all. I thought it would be a good idea to go that route, seeings how it seem to fit him. With this new info(to me anyway), maybe not such a good idea.