I have an idea. Let's try to end the deluge of alignment threads (which is mostly my fault) be clearly defining each alignment. Then, whenever alignment ambiguity rears it's ugly head, we can point people towards the thread.
Wishful thinking.
I think the first problem we will see is the biased view towards Good being ineffectual, naive, weak and stupid. So many people here are so jaded from real life sucking that they might as well say "playing a good character is like wishful thinking" and would rather define Neutral or Evil because they just come off more naturally in their Grey and Black worlds.
Also, I would go on to defining them, but I'm too tired to do so right now. Just wanted to warn you that Good will be the hardest to define, because so many here mistake Good for "Stupid Paladin" behaviour or "untarnishable perfection", both of which if roleplayed as "the only way of being Good" will inevitably result in players getting killed and/or people only being cynical at best and murderous, manipulative bastards at worst. (And I just got ninja'd by the Angel it seems)
|
I think the first problem we will see is the biased view towards Good being ineffectual, naive, weak and stupid. So many people here are so jaded from real life sucking that they might as well say "playing a good character is like wishful thinking" and would rather define Neutral or Evil because they just come off more naturally in their Grey and Black worlds.
Also, I would go on to defining them, but I'm too tired to do so right now. Just wanted to warn you that Good will be the hardest to define, because so many here mistake Good for "Stupid Paladin" behaviour or "untarnishable perfection", both of which if roleplayed as "the only way of being Good" will inevitably result in players getting killed and/or people only being cynical at best and murderous, manipulative bastards at worst. (And I just got ninja'd by the Angel it seems)
Alignment threads are also difficult because there are so many people who naively think that you can divide the world into black and white and be done with it, and go panic the moment they happen onto something they can't easily fit into their dichotomy.
Just sayin'. :)
I think the first problem we will see is the biased view towards Good being ineffectual, naive, weak and stupid. So many people here are so jaded from real life sucking that they might as well say "playing a good character is like wishful thinking" and would rather define Neutral or Evil because they just come off more naturally in their Grey and Black worlds.
Also, I would go on to defining them, but I'm too tired to do so right now. Just wanted to warn you that Good will be the hardest to define, because so many here mistake Good for "Stupid Paladin" behaviour or "untarnishable perfection", both of which if roleplayed as "the only way of being Good" will inevitably result in players getting killed and/or people only being cynical at best and murderous, manipulative bastards at worst. (And I just got ninja'd by the Angel it seems)
Alignment threads are also difficult because there are so many people who naively think that you can divide the world into black and white and be done with it, and go panic the moment they happen onto something they can't easily fit into their dichotomy.
Just sayin'. :)
That is also a problem...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will never be an absolute deffintion of alignments, and I believe this is the whole point of it. However, I can point you to this article:
It is well written, extremely detailed, and should answer most of your questions if you decide you share this point of view. This is generally the one I use, and refer my players there when they have alignment questions, unless I want to use the concept differently of course. But then they are informed so.
Also, keep in mind that Detect Alignment only catches auras, as had by Paladins, Clerics, creatures with an alignment subtype or beings 4th level and above. Commoners will not register on a detect spell, which gives you some ambiguity right there.
There will never be a definition of alignment that satisfies everyone, because it Evil is helped when Good is obfuscated, and Chaos doesn't want anything to be defined. Add to this mix that there is this unreasonable assumption that everyone's opinion matters, and nothing gets done.
You want to find out what good is, hang out with a good person. Good luck finding one.
There is an entire college degree and profession around defining alignments. It's called Philosophy and Ethics. It's one of my favorite topics of discussion and one of my favorite subjects in college. I'm not discounting this thread in the slightest, but I just want to make sure you know how daunting a task this can be, even in the limited scope of the D20 system. As a baseline example, I define Lawful Good, and by extension Paladins, using Kant's Metaphysics of Morals as the pillars.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually saw a homebrew Paladin once called "the Kantian Paladin". It was pretty awesome, and actually made sense.
I actually saw a homebrew Paladin once called "the Kantian Paladin". It was pretty awesome, and actually made sense.
After I read about Kant, my first thought was "THIS IS THE PALADIN CODE!" I play my paladins like that now.
I have no idea what you are talking about, TOZ :3
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is chaotic evil to engage in alignment thread discussions.
Also, keep in mind that Detect Alignment only catches auras, as had by Paladins, Clerics, creatures with an alignment subtype or beings 4th level and above. Commoners will not register on a detect spell, which gives you some ambiguity right there.
On the other hand, there's see alignment
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have an idea. Let's try to end the deluge of alignment threads (which is mostly my fault) be clearly defining each alignment. Then, whenever alignment ambiguity rears it's ugly head, we can point people towards the thread.Easiest way quite frankly, is for you and others who post incendiary threads is to stop posting incendiary threads.
I didn't post incendiary threads. I posted threads that ended up getting incinerated. Big difference.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignments were always my favorite part of the game -- the only truly dynamic aspect to gaming.
Then I solved it -- it's no longer interesting:
Good and Evil are ethical "alignments" /
Lawful and Chaotic are personality "alignments"
It's unfortunate that at no point during The Game's develpoment, no designer has ever had any kind of background in ethics, not Gygax in 1E, not Dave Cook in 2E, not Monte Cook & Skip Williams in 3E, not Bulmahn, Mona or Jacobs in Pathfinder.
And, as I've said in many Threads before -- a character's Alignment is the purview of the Player -- NOT the DM. If the Player says' x = LG for his or PC then x = LG for his or her PC and what the DM thinks DOES NOT MATTER. (I don't get to tell you what's "right or wrong" you sure as hell don't get to tell me what's "right or wrong.")
Actually, Kelsey, tell me: what is Batman's alignment?
You would first need to pick which batman comic and which writer first. But batman does give us the Joker which pretty much should be a pic in the book above CE
I didn't post incendiary threads. I posted threads that ended up getting incinerated. Big difference.I have an idea. Let's try to end the deluge of alignment threads (which is mostly my fault) be clearly defining each alignment. Then, whenever alignment ambiguity rears it's ugly head, we can point people towards the thread.Easiest way quite frankly, is for you and others who post incendiary threads is to stop posting incendiary threads.
We need to measure how flammable your threads are by now, Kelsey. I am starting to see a pattern here, after all.
|
|
Alignments were always my favorite part of the game -- the only truly dynamic aspect to gaming.
Then I solved it -- it's no longer interesting:
Good and Evil are ethical "alignments" /
Lawful and Chaotic are personality "alignments"It's unfortunate that at no point during The Game's develpoment, no designer has ever had any kind of background in ethics, not Gygax in 1E, not Dave Cook in 2E, not Monte Cook & Skip Williams in 3E, not Bulmahn, Mona or Jacobs in Pathfinder.
And, as I've said in many Threads before -- a character's Alignment is ithe perview of the Player -- NOT the DM. If the Player says' x = LG for his or PC then x = LG for his or her PC and what the DM thinks DOES NOT MATTER. (I don't get to tell you what's "right or wrong" you sure as hell don't get to tell me what's "right or wrong.")
While your view has a lot of sense, it does trip over when somebody casts any alignment-related spell or effect.
"You're Good! No I'm not! Yes you are! No I'm not!"
Alignment threads are also difficult because there are so many people who naively think that you can divide the world into black and white and be done with it, and go panic the moment they happen onto something they can't easily fit into their dichotomy
In worlds defined by Pathfinder, though, there is black and white. Nothing doesn't fit into the dichotomy, or I guess trichotomy, since there's netural.
The difficult part is having GMs/players adjucate this.
It's hard to think this way, but in Pathfinder, players might wonder what alignment certain behaviors fall under, but characters do not. Absolute morality is codified into the world itself.
Detect Alignment spells ensure that this is the case. Every single person on the planet is aligned, and for any people with 5+HD, one can tell, with certainty, what that alignment is (and yes, everyone will mention clerics with alignments different than their god, but if you serve evil, I fail to see how you could actually be un-evil anyway).
So, we have to realize that there are no areas of gray in the actual world of Pathfinder, unless you want to be cutesy and declare Neutral gray.
If, say, torture is always evil, then there is no excuse available, no room for interpretation, nothing. It is objectively evil. Period.
So, yes, we will always have threads about "what alignment is my guy who did X," but there will never be confusion among the characters in the world judging that action.
Note that I am not actually supporting or defending alignment in Pathfinder. I personally find it silly and have never used alignment in any way whatsoever in any rpg I've ever run. But if we're talking about using Alignment, we need to be on the same page.
For what it's worth, I think that the vast, vast majority of PCs are played as Neutral Good, regardless of what they put on the page. Most PCs are generally heroic, but generally care little about how their good is done.
I think that Evil is killing/hurting/oppressing/whatever non-evil people for a selfish reason other than self-defense or defense of others (either of which might be projected).
I think that Good is only killing/hurting/whatever non-evil people in self-defense or defense of others.
I think Law is supporting society and forming rules and codes of conduct, and Chaos is violating society and breaking rules and codes of conduct.
Examples:
A mercenary who kills purely for profit and never questions his jobs is Neutral Evil. A mercenary who kills purely for profit, but never breaks a contract and/or who will not work for someone opposed to his previous employers is Lawful Evil. A mercenary who kills purely for profit, but who freely breaks contracts and deals, especially betraying their employer if the target offers more is Chaotic Evil.
Stealing jewels from a rich noble because you want to buy a brothel or something inane like that is Chaotic Neutral. Stealing bread from a starving poor person is Chaotic and Evil. Stealing bread from a rich noble to feed a starving poor person is Chaotic and Good.
what is Batman's alignment?BM.
Wrong. True BM.
Alignments were always my favorite part of the game -- the only truly dynamic aspect to gaming.
Then I solved it -- it's no longer interesting:
Good and Evil are ethical "alignments" /
Lawful and Chaotic are personality "alignments"It's unfortunate that at no point during The Game's develpoment, no designer has ever had any kind of background in ethics, not Gygax in 1E, not Dave Cook in 2E, not Monte Cook & Skip Williams in 3E, not Bulmahn, Mona or Jacobs in Pathfinder.
And, as I've said in many Threads before -- a character's Alignment is the purview of the Player -- NOT the DM. If the Player says' x = LG for his or PC then x = LG for his or her PC and what the DM thinks DOES NOT MATTER. (I don't get to tell you what's "right or wrong" you sure as hell don't get to tell me what's "right or wrong.")
I like your views, however, in a world where Good and Evil (and to a lesser extent Law and Chaos) are as real and as tangible forces as the elements of Fire and Water, it simply can't work.
Paladin: Smite Evil!
Pit Fiend: Sorry, I've decided that I'm Lawful Neutral
Paladin: But you torture souls!
Pit Fiend: And what's so bad about that?
Explaining alignment is easy. Getting everyone else to agree that it's correct is the problematic part.
"You know what Alignment I am? Chaotic sexy baby!"
A big part of alignment within Pathfinder is how it applies to divine characters. While it is applicable everywhere, no one much cares if the Wizard is CN, CG, or LN... it doesn't hurt the game.
Characters can change alignment, obviously humans do this all the time (cynicism is the entropy of alignment). However, gods do not change (part of being a manifestation of an idea). The loss of divine boons, such as paladin powers, comes when an outside party (the god) decides the paladin is not representing him well. You can talk yourself into an action but you can't really talk the god into the action.
It doesnt matter if the paladin thinks he is doing good if the god thinks that it isn't. What the god thinks about any action is under the purview of the GM's interpretation of what the god is like. It should remain consistent and be swayed by circumstance only in so far as the god in question is reasonable.
Alignment sucks because it attempts to objectively define a topic for which each player and GM have a subjective understanding that is often clouded with personal bias (I am a good cleric, thus whatever things I do must also be good because by definition I wouldn't do bad things).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually saw a homebrew Paladin once called "the Kantian Paladin". It was pretty awesome, and actually made sense.
Actually, the deontological/utilitarian dynamic fits the lawful/chaotic dynamic very well.
Deontologists (Lawful) believe that the way you do something matters. An action is Right because of the way you carry it out, the results of the action do not matter. This is what leads to the absolute honesty of paladins and devils; they want to achieve their goals, but they aren't going to do things like lie to get it done. To act without any kind of code or rules to be held accountable to is a terrible idea. That would be Wrong in the deontologist's eyes.
Utilitarians (Chaotic) don't care how you get something done, as long as you get it done. An action is Right because of its results, not what your methods are. Something like stealing from the rich to help the poor (Robin Hood) is a utilitarian idea, as is doing morally reprehensible things to achieve your goals. Limiting yourself to a code is foolish (codes don't always get the job done) and leads to dogmatism and stagnation. That's Wrong in the utilitarian's eyes.
Of course the "corner alignments" (LG, CG, LE, CE) bring in moral philosophy to this as well. When it comes to good and evil, I like to think of it like this: imagine a 2D circle with a nice bell-curve to it. This represents a Neutral person's care for others. The highest point is in middle (themselves), their close friends and relatives are directly surrounding them, then their acquaintences are a bit farther and lower, and so on until you get to people they've never heard of at the edge of the circle, farthest down.
A good person would have a curve with a lot of space at the top because they care about others a great deal, including people they're not close with. Their curve has a lot of room at the top to where almost everyone is on the same level of care as the good person himself. An evil person would have a curve that's much steeper with a very high center point. They care a LOT about themselves and probably those close to them, but everyone else isn't much of a concern.
Hope this all made sense! I got this idea from an article on the Escapist, but I can't seem to find the page right now.
I actually saw a homebrew Paladin once called "the Kantian Paladin". It was pretty awesome, and actually made sense.Actually, the deontological/utilitarian dynamic fits the lawful/chaotic dynamic very well.
Deontologists (Lawful) believe that the way you do something matters. An action is Right because of the way you carry it out, the results of the action do not matter. This is what leads to the absolute honesty of paladins and devils; they want to achieve their goals, but they aren't going to do things like lie to get it done. To act without any kind of code or rules to be held accountable to is a terrible idea. That would be Wrong in the deontologist's eyes.
Utilitarians (Chaotic) don't care how you get something done, as long as you get it done. An action is Right because of its results, not what your methods are. Something like stealing from the rich to help the poor (Robin Hood) is a utilitarian idea, as is doing morally reprehensible things to achieve your goals. Limiting yourself to a code is foolish (codes don't always get the job done) and leads to dogmatism and stagnation. That's Wrong in the utilitarian's eyes.
Of course the "corner alignments" (LG, CG, LE, CE) bring in moral philosophy to this as well. When it comes to good and evil, I like to think of it like this: imagine a 2D circle with a nice bell-curve to it. This represents a Neutral person's care for others. The highest point is in middle (themselves), their close friends and relatives are directly surrounding them, then their acquaintences are a bit farther and lower, and so on until you get to people they've never heard of at the edge of the circle, farthest down.
A good person would have a curve with a lot of space at the top because they care about others a great deal, including people they're not close with. Their curve has a lot of room at the top to where almost everyone is on the same level of care as the good person himself. An evil person would have a curve that's much...
That would be the same article I posted a link to above. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Quantum,
You got it all wrong, mate....
a character's Alignment is the purview of the Player -- NOT the DM
So,
A Player says what is LG for HIS PC. (That's what's put on the character sheet.)A DM says what is CE for HIS NPC. (That's what's put on the stat block.)
Another Player says what is LG or CG for HER PC. (That's what's on the character sheet.)
A DM CAN NOT say someone else's PC is such-n-such.
This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a monster talking to a PC in a game, or an Alignment spell being cast in a game.
And Good and Evil are Ethical Alignments.
And Lawful and Chaotic are Personality Alignments.
Explains why I always felt closest to neutral good. You can't care only for how you do something or what the results are. Doing so is nonsensical.
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
So unless your running a game for the whole planet at once, let others play as they will.
|
|
Alignments were always my favorite part of the game -- the only truly dynamic aspect to gaming.
Then I solved it -- it's no longer interesting:
Good and Evil are ethical "alignments" /
Lawful and Chaotic are personality "alignments"It's unfortunate that at no point during The Game's develpoment, no designer has ever had any kind of background in ethics, not Gygax in 1E, not Dave Cook in 2E, not Monte Cook & Skip Williams in 3E, not Bulmahn, Mona or Jacobs in Pathfinder.
And, as I've said in many Threads before -- a character's Alignment is the purview of the Player -- NOT the DM. If the Player says' x = LG for his or PC then x = LG for his or her PC and what the DM thinks DOES NOT MATTER. (I don't get to tell you what's "right or wrong" you sure as hell don't get to tell me what's "right or wrong.")
I like your views, however, in a world where Good and Evil (and to a lesser extent Law and Chaos) are as real and as tangible forces as the elements of Fire and Water, it simply can't work.
Paladin: Smite Evil!
Pit Fiend: Sorry, I've decided that I'm Lawful Neutral
Paladin: But you torture souls!
Pit Fiend: And what's so bad about that?
Paladin: you are not a $%#%$#@$ Punch Clock villian, you enjoy it! If you said it was just a @$@#$# then I might @#$@#$ understand! But you don't need to @#$@# eat because devils don't need to #@$@#$ eat, nor do you pay rent. Therefore you do not need a job, and do not need to torture souls. And don't give me that "just following orders bullcrap" either. Now unless you go start just dispensing justice without any arbitration or joy or sorrow in it. You cannot call yourself Lawful @$##@$ Neutral! And I know for certian that you can't be Lawful #@#$@#$ Good because you're torturing souls. Evil souls yes, but your kind tries to get MORE souls to come here so you can torture them. That's evil, it's trying to get people to do things that are morally reprehensible so you can torture them in the afterlife. That all counts towards evil you oversized BBQ!
*la smite*
Well, I am Lawfully Chaotic. Or is that disorganized in an organized way? Well, it is something like that.