| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes its another alignment thread. this is not however an an attempt to tell people what I think good and evil is. but rather an attempt to remove the positive vs negative connotations from the alignment system.
the current alignment system basically comes from a lawful/good perspective. In other words evil is evil because its not good, chaotic is chaotic because its not Lawful.
i want to eliminate the good guy vs bad guy thought process that comes naturally with lawfull-good vs chaotic-evil and replace them with new names that still represent the same alignment goals.
I have been considering the following changes.
LAWFUL/CHAOTIC
replace LAWFUL/CHAOTIC with DOGMATIC/PRAGMATIC or maybe OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE
the goal is that instead of viewing this axis as the forces of order vs the sources of disorder. it is more like the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law, or in another sense ones view on whether or not the ends justify the means
GOOD/EVIL
I found this one much harder because its hard to find two words that both seem reasonably positive. for that reason I was forced to use two words that both have some what negative connotations. thus...
replace GOOD/EVIL with SOCIALIST/SELFISH
the intention is that instead of moral good vs moral evil its a matter of society first or self first. neither is more good or evil than the other, one simply believes that the needs of the many are greater than ones personal needs while the other believes that protecting and advancing ones self comes before worrying about others. in an emergency you would look to the safety of every one else before themself while the other believes that you have to make sure your OK so that you can effectively help more people (if you so chose)
Thus in this system a Paladin would be Dogmatic/Socialist while a goblin would be Pragmatic/Selfish. class based alignment rules would remain the same. Paladins and Monks are Dogmatic because they chose to follow paths of order and regimentation. Barbarians are Pragmatic because they believe that how you do something is never as important as what you achieve.
Though alignments would not have to change the way alignments are played could change greatly. rather than being sadistic evil beasts genetically driven to torture and destroy goblinoids would simply be a race that fully believes in might makes right and largely incapable of putting any kind of social order above their own individual welfare.
Final note. LAW/CHAOS GOOD/EVIL would remain in the game but would be limited to outsiders and gods and special cases. A demon or an archon are entirely different things than a selfish human or dogmatic dwarf. spells like detect law/chaos/good/evil would only ping on targets with a strong connection to these special forces. a cleric would register the alignment of their god in the light of such a spell and normal people would not ping unless they are well and truly evil or good in the eyes of the gods such as a truly virtuous philanthroper or a truly vile rapist.
I think this system will alleviate many of the alignment confusion and would also allow players to play characters the way they truly feel without thinking that to put yourself first means that your obligated to steal from friends and make random rolls in order to make decitions.
I was inspired by reading this article which i recommend to you all. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-Al l-About-Alignment
The article is a great explanation of alignment and at one point makes a very important comment.
|
Before you get flamed into a toasty overcooked crumpet, i would like to say that i love your idea, and this is a great expression of what i have previously tried to rationalise.
I completely agree that the current table examines alignments from the position of a lawful good character and frustrates me no end.
As a Pragmatic Socialist, i must attempt to save you from yourself:
blue_the_wolf is voicing his opinion, as is his right. anyone attempting to flame him has to get past ME first!
*dons volcano suit*
but if everyone is selfish and makes himself happy, doesn't that mean the whole society is happy? So Selfishness is socialism.
And if I make the whole society happy, and I'm part of society, I make me happy which is selfish. So Socialism is Selfishness.
I'm just saying that your system also has interpretation problems, not as many as good/evil, but still. It's a nice idea, but not that perfect that I would adopt it in my game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dogmatic/Pragmatic
Altruist/Narcissist
While "narcissist" conveys a negative tone, it is effectively what Evil is (i.e. 'all about me"). Now, a narcissist isn't necessarily a bad guy, but many decisions he makes are based on how it affects him. Which is what the article you linked to really addresses.
Many of you are presenting terms that have validity but also carry very strong positive vs negative connotations. Im not necessarily copying everything stated in that link. I was simply greatly inspired by it to think of the axis from a less biased point of view
Altruist is generally a good thing, Narcissism is generally considered a bad thing.
divine has to do with the heavenly forces of good, demonic the forces of evil.
etc etc.
the purpose of this is to create a system in which a person on one side of the spectrum will naturally see a person on the other side of the spectrum as wrong in their thinking but not necessarily EVIL and at the same time always reasonably view themselves as GOOD.
a Pragmatic person sees their own philosophy as reasonable and flexible while a dogmatic persons hardliner views are too strict and thoughtless and can lead to rules without morals. A Dogmatic person sees themselves as subscribing to a higher system than their own opinion and above the wildness of nature by way of rules and structure, while seeing a pragmatic person as being flimsy in their personal beliefs and unpredictable morals.
A Socialist person feels that the best way to advance society is to help others and work for the benefit of all, power should be shared and every one has a responsibility to their neigbor. They believe that a selfish person thinks only of themselves and lead to power grabbing tyrannical behavior. The Selfish person believes that if everyone makes the effort to see to their own welfare and the welfare of those closest to them then society on the whole will be stronger and more free. they believe that the socialist is too interested in forcing everyone to think alike and discouraging success.
note... if you find it difficult to see any good in a particular side of the access that does not mean they are evil. it simply means that your probably viewing it from the opposite side of the axis.
By the standard system Robin Hood is a subjective figure. If your a loyal business man who has done nothing wrong and your stuff is stolen by Robin Hood your would see the man as chaotic/evil or at best neutral/evil. the people robin hood helps would likely see him as neutral/good.
by my system most people would probably be willing to claim that Robin Hood is a Pragmatic/Socialist, whether he is good or evil would likely depend entirely on whether or not he has taken things from you or given things to you.
the purpose of this is to create a system in which a person on one side of the spectrum will naturally see a person on the other side of the spectrum as wrong in their thinking but not necessarily EVIL and at the same time always reasonably view themselves as GOOD.
While I understand and concede your point, "Socialist" and "Selfish" are not good descriptors. One can be "socialist" and "selfish." Example: I create and market a drug to cure cancer. I'm being selfish because I'm making a profit off the sale of that drug, but I'm also being socialist because I've created something for the common good.
However, I cannot simultaneously be altruistic and narcissistic. I may help people because I believe they need my help, and if the refuse my help they're just country bumpkins who don't understand how much they need me. In that case, helping people is not altruism, right?
Meanwhile, if one looks at a Han Solo rogue figure, he's narcissistic, but also pragmatic. Better go help Luke blow up the Death Star or the Empire will shut down all those good smuggling rings. That's narcissism, not altruism.
I like this discussion.
What's a synonym for "narcissist"?
I was thinking altruist/egoist . . . but I like communitarian/individualist.
Doug... your right. but then again one can also be altruistic AND narcissistic
Maeglach you have a good point, Socialist/selfish both lean toward the negative, I like Communitarian/Individualist.
My only problem with it is that they are kind of complex sounding... too big a mouthful for an easy descriptor. even dogmatic/pragmatic is a bit chewy.
don't you think that expressing oneself as a Dogmatic Communitarian is a bit much for a tabletop game?
any one else have terms that can fit Socialist/Selfish that are not so negative or communitarian/individualist that is not so complex?
Doug... your right. but then again one can also be altruistic AND narcissistic
I see that as narcissistic, since the "helping others" part comes after the "look at me" part. It's kinda like the "doing evil but only because it'll be good in the end" trope. But I do see your point, since we are disagreeing about it (although not as much as in the "Is this lawful good or evil" threads!).
On another point, do you have an idea for rating these traits? After all, a Stalin-esque Dogmatic Communitarian is pretty different from kind-hearted Dogmatic Communitarian old lady who bakes cookies and goes to Church every Sunday.
true... but thats why I take out Good/Evil and put it on its own unrelated system.
What I am hoping for is something that describes the characters philosophy and play style. not their goals or morals. A Dogmatic/communitarian (thats such a mouthfull) may be just as evil and seek nefarious goals as a pragmatic/individualist they just justify it differently and maybe go about it in different ways.
I am a little confused by your post. is your primary complaint that the system that I am explaining does not match up with the current alignment system? (a rebel which is now chaotic/good may become dogmatic/communal for example)
I guess your right. it does not match in many cases and would require retooling at times.
I agree its not perfect. the goal is not to achieve perfection. i believe that is impossible. the goal is to create a system which I think is less absolute in a right vs wrong sense alleviating some of the arguments in the current system.
in this system for example I believe I can easily describe a pragmatic/individualist cleric that is also a good force in the community.
(thats such a mouthfull)
See, that's why I liked Dogmatic Altruist. Sounds a little better.
I think there's an island nation with a gold dragon as the leader which shows the extreme that D/A (or dogmatic communitarian) can reach. Namely, "this is for the betterment of society and if you don't agree we'll disappear you."
Of course, since the dragon set himself up as the leader, and it's up to him as to the direction of this society, a Dogmatic Narcissist is leading a Dogmatic Altruist nation. That makes more sense than an Lawful Evil dragon leading a Lawful Good nation.
I have been debating this with people at my local shop and many feel it is highly game dependent.
some one playing a LotR type game is playing a game where evil is evil and good is good thus the normal alignment system works.
in my games I am essentially playing a Game of Thrones type of game where everything is shades of gray (except for certain specific forces of evil like devils and angels) thus in that kind of story this system works.
I was thinking altruist/egoist . . . but I like communitarian/individualist.
egocentric perhaps, not egoistic. egoism is the principle that every rational being, when confronted with a choice, makes the choice that has the most utility for him. the idea that altruism doesn't truly exist, because those who behave altruistically have made the choices they have for the benefit of themselves, their genes, their tribe, if perhaps only psychologically or emotionally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just posted a massive alignment screed on EN World. Let me look that up... here it is.
Basically, my argument is that Law-Chaos and Good-Evil both consist of competing, non-oppositional moral values that every sane character shares. Every character places some moral value on both altruism and self-interest, but Good characters favor the former and Evil characters favor the latter; likewise, every character places moral value on integrity-- obeying some internal code-- and on the freedom to do as they please, with Lawful characters favoring the former and Chaotic characters favoring the latter. (Essentially, Lawful characters are deontologists and Chaotic characters are consequentialists.)
Assigning political positions to moral alignments is an exercise in futility and, really, an open invitation for someone to punch you in the face-- seriously, don't be so quick to presume the political affiliations of your friends.
Good right-wing characters probably donate extensively to religious and private charities, and punish people who abuse their authority harshly. Lawful right-wingers believe in some charter of moral laws that specify who people in specific roles are to behave; they're the more authoritarian and conservative aspects of the Right. Evil right-wingers... well, given your opinion of socialism, you don't need me to help you here. Chaotic right-wingers don't have much use for rules and rulers, believing that the successful people should have enough room to spread their wings; they're your economic libertarians and free market capitalists, believing that the invisible hand benefits everyone and benefits the deserving most of all.
Good left-wingers are pretty obvious: they want to take more from the people who can afford it most, to benefit the people who need it most. Lawful left-wingers believe strongly in democracy and rule by consensus, working within the system. Chaotic left-wingers are, for better or worse, protesters and radicals who believe social justice comes only from civil disobedience or outright revolution. Evil left-wingers want power and money and they use the politics of envy to get them; they use government subsidies and tax policy to take from the rich and give to themselves.
I always liked Bester from B5 as a villain. Sure he was a bad guy but from his point of view he was just doing what was necessary for the good of his people.
Evil is motivated by the greater good, perceived or actual necessity, cultural edicts, callousness/lack of empathy, social pressure, a genetic predisposition toward violence in Orcs, etc. It's ridiculous to have characters that are evil for the sake of being evil. Unless of course we're talking about Planar beings like Angels and Demons that by their very nature embody such abstract concepts.
Maybe you could change Good/Evil into Empathetic/Callous.
Evil can possess empathy imo the most wicked examples do.
Good can be callous. Good can be unsympathetic. Good can be cold.
I can see what you're saying but it doesn't fit the construct imo.
|
In this sense, Law simply represents forces of order and creation, while Chaos represents destruction and renewal. Good and Evil are harder to pin down, but they seem to roughly align with life and peace, and death and conflict, respectively.
Depends on the world. Law can also phrased as order, stability and stagnation; while chaos is anarchy, disintegration and yet is the creative force.... too many different variations.
In the Elric stories, Law was essentially equated more with 'Good' but not as an absolute, and Chaos was more or less equated with 'Evil'-- which is where original D&D more or less placed Law and Chaos (and didn't have Good and Evil in the alignment system yet).
I think the original poster should just consider doing without the alignment system entirely-- except perhaps for supernaturally good or evil creatures from the outer planes. So long as you've got players who can actually form a character's personality and attitudes without requiring the crutch of alignment to tell them what to do, you should be alright. That, and maybe give 'em a few RL books on philosophy-- specifically some 'ethics' textbooks for guidance if they need some buzzwords for defining their character's outlook.
I think the original poster should just consider doing without the alignment system entirely-- except perhaps for supernaturally good or evil creatures from the outer planes. So long as you've got players who can actually form a character's personality and attitudes without requiring the crutch of alignment to tell them what to do, you should be alright. That, and maybe give 'em a few RL books on philosophy-- specifically some 'ethics' textbooks for guidance if they need some buzzwords for defining their character's outlook.
I kind of like the idea of only Planar beings having alignments. Regular people could use something like Ars Magica's Personality Traits. What to do with Paladins though?
I like law vs. chaos, but usually define it according to the individual. Law can be discipline, honor, or an obsessive adherence to rules for their own sake. Chaos can be willful defiance for its own sake, laziness, a disconnection from the rules of society and so on.
Good = Altruism
Neutrality = impartiality or selfishness
Evil = masochismSo good people derive joy from benefiting others, evil people derive joy from harming others or dominating them, and neutral people feel neither.
Some people are evil because they just don't give a damn about other people (sociopaths). They don't get off on hurting people. In fact there's no emotional factor at all for them. People are just tools. A means to an ends. Nothing more. Having all your evil people be masochists makes for a very comic book version of evil.
It's still my view that the root of goodness is based on empathy. Not just the ability to understand others motives but to actually project oneself and feel as they do.
@cranewings Ah so you're looking at the motivation rather then the effect. A fair point but then you could say a concentration camp guard that gasses people isn't necessarily evil. What about people that destroy the lives of others for a dispassionate sense of greed? Live, die, whatever. As long as I get my gold. Seems kind of evil to me. /shrug