This has been something bubbling around in my brain for awhile and I thought I'd toss it out there as sort of a discussion point.
Please keep it clean and keep it civil :)
There are currently 9 alignments in D&D. They are made up of 6 parts.
If you don't want a brief rundown on how I see the alignments, skip the spoilers :)
I. Law, Chaos, Neutrality
Lawful tends to describe someone who adheres to some code or law. Not necessarily the laws of any land- but just some code or method.
a policeman would be lawful. An assassin could easily fall into this as well, as could a methodical serial killer.
Chaotic tends to describe the free spirit. They have their goals and are more likely to just.. do whatever it takes to do it.
The way a child acts fits this alignment nearly perfectly. Folks who do things without being particularly orderly or neat about it could also fall into this category. A bard, wandering the world, doing whaever it is they choose to do. It, like Lawful, has nothing to do with *what* you are doing though- its a matter of how you do it.
An assassin can very easily be chaotic. No creed to follow no rules to adhere to- they'll kill anyone anywhere anyhow as long as the cash is good.
The (to me) classic Justicar or bounty hunter is much the same. Though they may have to adhere to some laws generally they have the ability to take on whatever job they want to. (not that one couldnt' choose to be Lawful instead)
Neutral is in the middle. They aren't really tending towards codified or personal laws but even if they do they are probably going to be rough guidelines than hard "line in the sand" rules. They may have things to strive for but aren't afraid to step outside of that if the needs require it.
I personally think most people fall into this group.
We, as a society, follow most laws but tend to very frequently break others as it suits our whims. (speed limits, rolling stops at signs, etc.). We obey the "big laws" but tend to not fret the small ones unless a cop is around :)
II. Good, Evil, Neutrality
A good person puts the needs of others above themselves. They look to others before they look to themselves. This doesn't mean always just that as a general rule they do so. I think a person could be selfish sometimes without being evil or neutral just like It hink a person could be a coward but still mean well.
The Good person would be more willing to share than not, and not willing to kill, harm, or injure the innocent just to get the job done.
An evil person thinks about themselves firsr and the other person.. well.. never. They are the first middle and last thing on their list of priorities and to heck with the rest of the world. Themselves, or whatever goal or motivation that they have. At the end of the day though they look out for number one.
Neutral. A neutral person.. doesn't exist. This is actually the point of the thread.
Good, Evil, Neutral.
Can you be Neutral in a world where good and evil exist as defined objective entities rather than subjective thoughts and ponderings?
I say, no. Any creature with an int higher than 3 that also has a wisdom and charisma score has an alignment. An alignment is a choice- but choosing not to do something is just as much a choice as anything else.
With that in mind- how do you "choose" to be neutral and how do you maintain it in a world of good or evil?
Sure, animals do it just fine- but they do so without having the capacity for the other alignments. A wolf isn't good or evil. It doesn't attack you because its bored- it attacks you because you are squishy and tasty.
So whats my problem with it? Its simple-
A person can only remain neutral as long as there are never any choices in their lives that require them to make a decision requiring good or evil. Once they have to make those choices their alignment begins to change.
Lets take an example for it:
A druid in the woods.
A druid in the woods wanders the forest keeping the animals safe and all that stuff, communing with nature and.. well, yeah- being a druid.
One day he spies a troop of 50 hobgoblins marching down a road that goes through said forest.
The road leads to a human village that rests a mile or two outside the other side of the forest.
Now, Hobbies are LE. Its not guaranteed that they are going after the humans but its virtually guaranteed that if they stay on the road, they will find the village, and with 50 of them they are most likely to be dining on human for supper that night.
Whats the druid to do?
1) Attack the hobbies.
2) Go warn the village
3) shadow the hobbies to make sure they don't harm the forest, otherwise leave them alone
4) go back to tending the forest, ignore the hobbies.
1) Good act. Period. Ridding the world of evil- and goblin kin at that- is pure win. Now you may say its an evil act to attack anything unprovoked. Sure, fine. But its not neutral.
2) Good act. Whether he stays to help them or flies off he's still tilted the scale towards doing good. He can get brownie points for staying or for going for help elsewhere but at least he didn't just sit on his thumbs.
3) Evil. By not warning the village or taking out the hobbies himself, he's aiding and abetting the evil that the hobbies are going to do.
4) Same as 3. By effectively ignoring the evil that will be committed and doing nothing, he's moved a notch towards evil.
Now you may not like that example- but really there are any number of them.
They find a child in a sack while three orcs prepare a cookpot, save the child or ignore it?
The point being- once you come across a circumstance that requires you to do good or evil it begins to move your alignment in that direction.
If you just ignore the evil then you are in effect becoming evil yourself.
Which brings us to-
Is it evil to ignore evil? Is it evil to know about evil and know that they will commit an evil act, and do nothing to try to stop it or prevent it? or warn the innocents at least?
I think it depends on ability.
If the druid in question for either example above is some level 1 squirt then they are commiting suicide against the 50 hobbies. No doubt.
Now he should try to alert someone- a friend, a mentor, maybe run ahead (if possible) to the village.
But wanting and trying to do good (even if you lack the ability) is good.
Not caring and turning your back on it, is evil. Isn't it?
If a level 20 druid is watching the 3 orcs getting ready to have human child soup is it evil for him to shrug and fly away? Dang human shouldn't have been in the forest anyway?
I'm not really sure how this would be anything but an evil act.
Neutrality is *supposed* to be a balance between the two without commiting to each. The druid is, in theory, the king of this (as they are devoted to nature but not law, chaos, good, evil) but .. I just don't see how thats possible.
Afterall- you don't really score alignment points. Alignment isn't a scale like something in a video game where you get good marks and bad marks and try to stay within the +10/-10 on the alignment scale or something to stay neutral.
So, the rant is over and I posit the questions:
Am I just missing something? Is there some bit of knowledge or an example that'll just make it so clear to me?
Am I just wrong that ignoring evil isn't evil?
I look forward to the conversation.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could consistently act differently toward different things. Evil to Orcs, Good to Elves. If your interaction rate with each was moderately consistent you'd maintain a neutral alignment. If you dealt with one five or more times as much as the other you'd skew toward Good/Evil.
My fire half-orc character, and the one that I've had the most time to flesh out in the campaign he is in, is of a True Neutral alignment, and I justify it based on one core ideal that the character possesses:
"Everything I do, I do for the prosperity of my tribe."
To me, this gives the character a lot of leeway when it comes to making decisions. His actions, regardless of if they are Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil (though he would be hesitant to do something consciously evil), only have to fulfill a single criteria for him to be willing to do it.
Personally, I don't see it all that hard to justify neutrality, though that may just be from how I interpret the alignment system.
Am I just wrong that ignoring evil isn't evil?
I would say yes.
Good and Evil in D&D are more active alignments. They go out and do things. Someone who is apathetic, uninvolved, or ignorant of the vast state of the world - IE most average commoners - and tends only to their own business falls into neither of these. They might do something generous for those they know closely and personally, maybe even occasionally for a stranger, but for most not enough to shift themselves truly to the activeness required for a Good alignment. Likewise most won't go out of their way to perform the malevolence required for an Evil alignment.
Nowhere does it say that "allowing evil to exist" is an evil act, only aiding and participating in said evil.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I could think when reading the thread title was: "Maybe"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to look at your examples #3 & #4 as examples of neutrality, and not evil as you suggest.
I don't see "Not Acting" to prevent an evil act as the same as commiting the evil act. Therefore, the druid who does nothing, is being neutral in thier alignment.
The main scenarios I see boil down like this:
1) druid warns village - Good
2) druid helps goblins - Evil
3) druid does nothing - Neutral
There are many variations that could play out here, but as I see it, the druid has nothing vested in either side, and has no moral obligation towards helping the villagers or the goblins.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, true neutral is not only possible, but it would generally be the most common alignment you can find for most people on Golarion.
True Neutral is generally codified as non-malicious self-interest. As has been pointed out before, most commoners would be true neutral. Their actions would tend to be reciprocative and based on personal relationships. For example, they would be ready and willing to fight for their families and village, even lay down their lives if necessary. If someone is behaves kindly towards them, they will reciprocate and behave kindly towards the person. If someone behaves unkindly towards them, they will react with unkindness towards them.
However, when it comes to wider conflicts, they generally will not involve themselves. For example, if Lord Doom rallies an army for world conquest, and the adventurer heroes plea to the villagers for aid, the villagers will not help the adventurers unless it is clear to them that they will be impacted by Lord Doom's schemes. In fact, if the villagers believe that Lord Doom will spare their village from assault if they turn in the heroes, the villagers may be inclined to capture the heroes and give them in to Lord Doom. Why? Because that presents the greatest benefit to the village and their brothers and sisters. It's nothing personal, and the villagers are not trying to be malicious.
They see it as a simple choice: Lord Doom is powerful and vicious, and it makes little sense to resist him and have the village and everyone within it wiped out for the sake of undertaking the adventurer's crusade. However, if the villagers know that Lord Doom is a man who would probably wipe out their village just for the fun of it, even if they turn in the heroes and capitulate to Lord Doom's demands, they would most likely help the heroes, simply because it is in their rational self-interest to do so. However, they are not helping the heroes because they wish to undertake a quest for truth and justice. They are simply doing it to keep their village from being wiped out.
I have to admit to being a fan of Palladium's 'no such thing as neutral' stance on alignment, as well as their clearly-defined sets of behaviours for each alignment.
That said, given the alignment system PF inherited, well... being Neutral is difficult. Possible, but not natural to any reflexive, self-aware and sentient being.
Our actions and choices TEND AWAY from neutrality, for the mostpart. Even if it is only a mild trend, most people aren't neutral.
For the above-mentioned Druid: failing to involve himself in the plight of the village is rather irrelevant. Hobgoblins are just as 'natural' as whatever lives in the village, and are arguably less-detrimental to the natural order than the agriculture (or aquaculture, or sericulture, whatever) indulged in by the villagers.
Unless the village is FAR more modernly-green than typical for medieval-style townships, it's a blight on the natural ecology... so hobgoblin raids cause a practicing druid no tears.
If the village is conscientious about their impact on their surroundings, maybe a warning is in order. But it doesn't strike me as anything the druid ought to feel obliged to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you be Neutral in a world where good and evil exist as defined objective entities rather than subjective thoughts and ponderings?
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality? I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you be Neutral in a world where good and evil exist as defined objective entities rather than subjective thoughts and ponderings?What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality? I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif.
If I don't survive, tell my wife...Hello.
I think in these games that alignment is poorly understood and even more poorly used. In homebrew we simply do not use it. --This is not a slam at the OP
Being neutral is your core belief in balance. It does not necessarily represent every action you take as we are all forced to act against our beliefs from time to time...at work, at school, etc. Just because you are compelled to act one way does not mean your personal beliefs change.
A true neutral character may warn the town of the hobgoblins, not because it is good, but because he knows that sooner or later those hobgoblins will invade the woods and be his problem. Warning the town now is just a smart move for protecting the forest down the road.
Likewise, if the town was heavily polluting, the hobgoblins may be the preferable neighbors and he may not warn the town.
In the common Paladin posts, people state you cannot heal yourself before an injured party member.
LG =/= stupid
You heal yourself first so you can beat the monsters, then heal your partner. This is not evil in any way, it is a good tactical choice when fighting for your life.
*edit*
As posted above, you are mistaken in your examples #3 and #4. Those are not inherently evil actions. You are making an assumption that the humans are somehow better than the hobgoblins for the balance. As I illustrated above, there are circumstances in which the opposite is true or even one act against the alignment is justified. The druid may have a friend in town...warning the town to save the friend is good, but that does not mean that his or her alignments changes or is wrong in any way.
Is neutrality possible? Yes. Neutrality really is a middle way between the selfishness of evil and the altruism of good. Neutrals probably don't stick their necks out for people unless they're meaningful to them or the cost of doing so is low. Neutral is a much if not more about not picking a particular side as it is about balancing between the two.
Alignment isn't just a moral philosophy a character chooses to have, it's a description of that character's morals when observed from someone else's perspective. If he risks his life to save his daughter from drowning but doesn't lift a finger to help a traveler's daughter when falling into the same river, he's probably neutral.
neutrality in the world of pathfinder generally means a specific indifference to one of the axis.
some people for example really dont care about good or evil. only adherence to the law or the goals of chaos.
in some cases (usually haveing to do with law vs chaos) there is not an indifference but a very specific goal of balance between one side or the other.
both represent neutrality.
I have to admit to being a fan of Palladium's 'no such thing as neutral' stance on alignment, as well as their clearly-defined sets of behaviours for each alignment.
In my opinion, they just didn't like the word "neutral"...all their "self interested" alignments are exactly how I see neutrality in D&D, so there is no difference to me from a practical/mechanical standpoint.
Neutrality is what happens to you when you don't move consistently in one direction or the other. It is not only possible to not work actively towards good or evil, I tend to think most people do that. Apathy is easy, and it's not evil, most of the time.
|
|
Is neutrality possible? Yes. Neutrality really is a middle way between the selfishness of evil and the altruism of good. Neutrals probably don't stick their necks out for people unless they're meaningful to them or the cost of doing so is low. Neutral is a much if not more about not picking a particular side as it is about balancing between the two.
Alignment isn't just a moral philosophy a character chooses to have, it's a description of that character's morals when observed from someone else's perspective. If he risks his life to save his daughter from drowning but doesn't lift a finger to help a traveler's daughter when falling into the same river, he's probably neutral.
This. In fact, the way many people choose to explain it makes little sense. How many Medieval peasants do you think consider the philosophical ramifications of alignment, or choosing to conduct their actions along the axis of Law/Chaos? I do not think that many. Rather, Good/Neutral/Evil vs. Law/Chaos are descriptive of actions taken and the consequences of these actions. Even those who ascribe to philosophical Chaos versus Law would probably word their beliefs and actions derived from those beliefs in terms of "freedom" versus "order."
Further, how many villains, except for utter psychopaths and Demon-Worshippers, truly consider themselves to be upholders of all that is evil and chaotic, neutral or lawful? I doubt many would. Even Asmodeus does not consider himself "Evil." He simply looks at himself as the greatest being in existence, and thus all should bow before his throne and recognize him as the One True God. While his methods are brutal, he simply sees them as exhibitions of the strength of both he and his infernal hosts. Depending on how he is played, he may even see himself as genuinely benevolent and righteous, because he offers mortal souls protection against annihilation by the Daemons and Qlippoth, as well as being the unshakable upholder of Universal Law and Order.
Remember, neutrality may also be seeking balance between good and evil. I think of this as "Philosophical Neutrality" as opposed to "Apathetic Neutrality." A philosophically neutral druid believes that having the world be too Good or too Evil is undesirable. Such a druid always chooses to help the underdog.
So if he finds himself in a LG nation, he would aid the hobgoblins. If he finds himself in a Evil Empire, he would aid the villagers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about 'choosing' an Alignment. You choose your ACTIONS.
Your Alignment is a measurement of the net effect of your actions upon your Alignment.
Nobody really needs to have any conscious 'allegiance' to their measured Alignment,
whether that is Good, Neutral, or Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, etc.
Sure, it's POSSIBLE for some people to consciously choose an Alignment they are loyal to, and one can consciously choose True Neutral if one is so inclined, but it isn't NECESSARY to do so. True Neutral really isn't any more problematic than any other Alignment - Look at the Alignment threads about Lawful Good/Paladins, as well as other Alignment issues.
I think neutral can easy have passive and active leanings. Keeping the balance of the universe being active, and making it through life being passive. In the course of a person's life, that person can demonstrate all manner of appearances of good and evil, law and chaos, whithout neccessarily changing his or her core being.
But RPGs involve acting and making stands, so falling beyond a simple leaning is possible. Just like balancing an object, it must be attended to.
One of my two current characters is a cleric of Pharasma, and neutral. Its actually the first timde in 25 years of gaming that I'm giving a serious go at the alignment, and I'm anticipating some tough spots. For now, I simply act of behanlf of my church, and the current mission it has for me. In this endeavor I will make decisions based on what seems best at the time. Fortunately in the group's situation, acting in the party's best interest is very close to being in mine as well.
We'll see how I end up playing him down the road. I tend towards good characters.
|
|
Remember, neutrality may also be seeking balance between good and evil. I think of this as "Philosophical Neutrality" as opposed to "Apathetic Neutrality." A philosophically neutral druid believes that having the world be too Good or too Evil is undesirable. Such a druid always chooses to help the underdog.
You see, there I find Neutrality going from something realistic (i.e., the villagers who don't care one whit about anything unless it affects them or their village) to something very unrealistic and downright alien (i.e., the Druid who allows or actively helps a generally good nation to burn at the hands of Demons because they threaten to tip the balance of the overall "goodness quotient" too far to one side).
So if he finds himself in a LG nation, he would aid the hobgoblins. If he finds himself in a Evil Empire, he would aid the villagers.
In what universe does that make any sense? It is one thing to be neutral to a conflict, i.e., it does not concern you, or you are completely apathetic. But what kind of person, outside of some creature that is wholly alien, would choose to intervene to knowingly help those that are evil for the sake of helping evil flourish to a degree of homeostasis with good? And on what basis would that person say that "too much good" is a "bad" thing?
There ARE alien beings dedicated to cosmic neutrality in the universe of Golarion.
Nothing about Alignment would 'make' you act with alien impulses outside the frame of reference of your being/identity.
Nothing about Alignment 'makes' you do anything no matter what, it is always simply a MEASUREMENT of the net value of your actions.
Just like saying 'I am measured to be 5' tall' doesn't 'make' you do anything, if your legs are cut off then you are no longer 5' tall, and your height measurement is 'updated' accordingly.
"If you just ignore the evil then you are in effect becoming evil yourself. "
I think there are many real world religions/belief systems that would disagree with that idea. It is fairly common for concepts such as loving and forgiving your enemies, not focusing your energies on evil things, and treating every creature with kindness.
"All you need is love" may sound like the paragon of goodness, but if you really live by that it is probably closer to a form of neutrality.
With all that said, I think Evil in role playing games really thinks of itself as Evil. Unlike in the real world, where even those who commit the worst atrocities rationalize and justify their actions, Evil would be proud of being evil. Good would be mocked and reviled as weak and foolish.
|
|
There ARE alien beings dedicated to cosmic neutrality in the universe of Golarion.
Indeed. But my question is why someone who is not some kind of alien outsider, and whose actions affect the world he/she lives in, would chose to undertake such an action?
Nothing about Alignment would 'make' you act with alien impulses outside the frame of reference of your being/identity.
Nothing about Alignment 'makes' you do anything no matter what, it is always simply a MEASUREMENT of the net value of your actions.Just like saying 'I am measured to be 5' tall' doesn't 'make' you do anything, if your legs are cut off then you are no longer 5' tall, and your height measurement is 'updated' accordingly.
I never said that alignment necessarily "made" people act in a way. What I was wondering was on what basis someone would choose such an action. What is the end goal of making sure there is just as much evil as there is good in the world? Why would anyone, whatever their alignment, choose to make the world morally homeostatic? What end is being sought, and why would they choose such an end? Because to me, "seeking balance" by making sure there is just as much evil as there is good in the world makes absolutely no sense to me, and perhaps someone is up to the task of providing a rational explaination.
But if you are making the argument that alignment is merely descriptive rather than prescriptive, I would have to argue against that. Alignment is also perscriptive because in the art of role-playing people act in character with their alignment.
For example, do you leave your character's alignment line blank before beginning a game, and only after completing an adventure/campaign or retiring a character, do you decide to measure up the sum total of his/her actions with the DM to determine your character's alignment? I'm not trying to be rude here, and if you choose to role-play in this manner, it is perfectly fine. It's just that I do not. And I do not think that most people who play alignment-based RPGs do either.
|
Now, I do not know how you choose to role-play Pathfinder or other RPGs, but do you leave your character's alignment line blank before beginning a game, and only after completing an adventure/campaign or retiring a character, do you decide to measure up the sum total of his/her actions with the DM to determine your character's alignment? I'm not trying to be rude here, and if you choose to role-play in this...
That would be difficult to do with a class that is restricted to certain alignments.
If good, evil, chaos, and law ARE discrete things (heavily implied as such through the interactions of various spells and the natures of aligned Outsiders, but I haven't seen this explicitly stated) then one certainly could pursue an active neutrality by way of attempting to keep those forces balanced in the Prime Material.
Difficult to keep the scale of the Prime Material in focus; think globally, act locally writ large.
This is more complicated than just balancing your actions between good/evil and law/chaos (which is silly, imo, and more chaotic than anything else, again imo).
But if one posits that domination by either end of an alignment axis is bad for reality, and I do think there is a decent argument to be made there, then prodding things back from the extremes would be the active philosophical neutral thing to do.
Mind you, I personally aim to see order flourish, the better to pursue my tyrannical nature, so *I* wouldn't try to balance these forces -- but I can see how one could make a dreary task out of trying, incarnation after incarnation...
|
|
For example, do you leave your character's alignment line blank before beginning a game, and only after completing an adventure/campaign or retiring a character, do you decide to measure up the sum total of his/her actions with the DM to determine your character's alignment? I'm not trying to be rude here, and if you choose to role-play in this manner, it is perfectly fine. It's just that I do not. And I do not think that most people who play alignment-based RPGs do either.
In the campaign I'm currently playing in, we had two characters do that (including mine). That's something I'll do a lot of time for young characters who have never been tested -- their ultimate alignment will depend on how that first major crisis goes.
With all that said, I think Evil in role playing games really thinks of itself as Evil. Unlike in the real world, where even those who commit the worst atrocities rationalize and justify their actions, Evil would be proud of being evil. Good would be mocked and reviled as weak and foolish.
I think it's more accurate to say both are present and accounted for. There are certainly the vile cultists and madmen and tyrants who revel in their evilness, and just as much of them there are the Well-Intended Extremists, the misguided antiheroes, and the controllers who believe their iron-fisted rule is the only way to ensure peace and happiness. The "proud to be evil" would be the former, and the "rationalize and justify" would be the latter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games neutral is the default alignment for intelligent creatures. Only exceptionally good/evil/lawful/chaotic characters have a non-neutral alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In what universe does that make any sense? It is one thing to be neutral to a conflict, i.e., it does not concern you, or you are completely apathetic. But what kind of person, outside of some creature that is wholly alien, would choose to intervene to knowingly help those that are evil for the sake of helping evil flourish to a degree of homeostasis with good? And on what basis would that person say that "too much good" is a "bad" thing?
Say I am a cleric of Urgathoa. I don't want Good to "win" since all the undead are destroyed. From my point of view, Evil could win in 2 ways:
1. All life destroyed. This is bad since many undead, like vampires, need living creatures to sustain their un-life.
2. All life is enslaved on massive blood/lifeforce farms. This is bad because it leads to stasis. For progress to exists, new ideas are needed and my cleric may feel that for this he needs mortals who live free lives and then choose to become undead.
---------------
Another example. Say I am a (CN) druid. I prioritize the welfare of nature. However, I want humanoids to continue to exist since they are part of nature.
If a country becomes too Lawful Good, they quickly exterminate all the monsters and start over-consuming. If a society becomes too Lawful Evil, they exterminate all the adventurers, subjugate all the wild monsters and start strip-mining. Only by keeping the humanoids balanced between Good and Evil can I ensure that there are enough predators to prey on both sides. Thus I achieve my desired world.
---------------
Last example. My character could believe that the material plane must remain balanced for cosmological reasons. Its possible that if the plane becomes too Good or too Evil than it will merge with the appropriate outer plane and thus bring about the end of the world, in the sense that new souls will stop appearing on the material plane.
Firstly: Thanks for all the replies everyone, and for them all being civil.
(and even some being rather amusing :) )
I think some problem is that folks view "balance" as somehow being outside the alignment structure. Several folks said that the druid was upholding balance and therefore that was alright.. or that maybe the hobbies were better neighbors or something.
A person not adhering to the tenants of Druidism is a matter for the druid specifically- its not an alignment issue.
If the town happens to be "worse for the forest" than the hobbies are, that has to do with the druid and his tenants *not* his or her alignment.
The issue isn't who is better to live with- its whether or not its an alignment hit to allow an evil force to go stomp a town of folks who are otherwise innocent. (i.e. didn't provoke said attack).
To put it another way- I think people are concentrating too hard on the druid and his/her tenants rather than the alignment issue.
Replace that with Joe Schmuch Fighter and ask the same questions.
Is it good for him to let the LE guys pass by knowing they will likely assault the town? Not his problem afterall.
I also do not believe that neutral means equaling out your good and evil deeds.
Alignment isn't a sliding scale where you tag +1's on it here and -1's on it there to stay in the middle. Your decisions and the reasons behind them will determine your actions far more than any one deed. (unless its an especially bad deed I suppose).
If an evil someone was infiltrating the good guys fortress and did all the good deeds required and all that he wouldn't suddenly turn into a good guy. Good deeds aren't enough- its the intent and the whys of it.
Evil can do good and not turn good. And its a double standard. A good guy doing evil /will/ become evil.
I'm still not sure I buy into the idea that the guy just letting Evil walk by and not doing anything about it at all just "Well not my problem" isn't an evil act.
To contrast with the average villager- I would actually say they are good or at least leaning towards it. While the average peon my not be able to stop Lord Doom from taking over that doesn't mean they don't /want/ to. They just aren't capable and they know it. And they often *do* fight against it- they just use guerilla warfare and behind-the-scenes rebellions and such. Only the worst of them just up and turn coat and side with the Bad Guys.
Its true that most people most of the time just do their thing. They go to work they buy food they go home cook and eat with their families. This has little to do with their alignments though. Thats like saying a wizard is neutral for spending a year in a library. Its essentially alignment-less activity. What counts is whats on the inside. What they would do if they could or the opportunity arose.
Sure, not everyone is a Paladin at heart but that doesn't mean they can't be inherently good or willing to do good.
(also doesn't mean someone can't be a slime ball bad guy either, for that matter).
I think its harder for us to see in our lives because we don't have quantifyable evil. We have evil but not EVIL- like demons and devils and such.
If you change hobgoblin for a dretch or glaberzu or something- does that change the equation? Suddenly you have something that you *know* for sure will do evil.. is Schmuch ok alignment wise to stay in the tree cleaning his fingernails? or is he commiting evil by just letting it pass by without trying to do something about it?
Whether that something is killing it himself, trying to find someone who can, or going to warn the village...
-S
I think that it is possible for an act to be capital 'N' Neutral, just like an act can be Good or Evil. In this case, Neutral acts are those that balance cosmic Good and Evil.
----------------
With regard to apathy: In your example, its not necessarily trivial for Joe fighter to warn the village. He has to take time out of his day, and potentially run afoul of the hobgoblins. Lets take your example to a more extreme level so that we can see what I mean.
Say you are the king of a powerful kingdom. You know that across the ocean, an Evil empire has risen. You can raise an army, sail across the ocean and destroy the evil overlord. Your military advisory says this will cost you 50% of the national budget for the next 4 years.
Meanwhile, your domestic adviser tells you that for that much money you can build a school in every village.
Is it still Evil for you to ignore the empire? Does it seem as clear-cut as the druid example?
If we only consider active actions to have Moral weight, its easier to decide if a character is being good or evil without descending into complex moral debates. Sometimes :)
How does the druid know the hobbies are evil, besides prejudging based upon racial reputation? If the druid is in the forest and a squad of knights are advancing to the hobgoblin camp are they off to go perform good based upon the average alignment of the nearby town? It's quite possible that both societies are evil, doing evil to each other as a matter of course. Both societies could likewise be good or neutral themselves, but have legitimate territorial and resource demands that cannot be solved with diplomacy.
His motivation counts just as much as the actions he takes. If he lets the humans get attacked, because the humans have an adverse and oppressive influence on the natural world he is sworn to protect, then that varies very much so than choosing not to act because of not wanting to spend the effort or resources, general apathy toward either race, or it not favoring his self-interest, etc.
But lets say sufficient evidence for an evil force intending to do evil to an unaware good population is the situation. By action or inaction, good will survive or evil will survive and it is up to the neutral character to decide. Decent examples of neutral actions would be warning the town to give them a sporting chance but not personally intervening and going to plunder the hobgoblin's camp for anything of relevant value to a druid, probably livestock. Likewise he could offer to help the hobgoblins (and threaten them if they refuse) in exchange for a pledge not to kill or significantly harm the humans, only steal from them, and a cut of the loot (all of their horses to be set free). It's pretty neutral if both good and evil survive the conflict, likewise it's pretty neutral if both are worse off because of it. He could go drive out the hobgoblin noncombatants while the combatants are away, and go drive out the hobgoblins and humans that lived after the attack's conclusion and claim the whole area as his own wildlife refuge.
I never said that alignment necessarily "made" people act in a way. What I was wondering was on what basis someone would choose such an action. What is the end goal of making sure there is just as much evil as there is good in the world? Why would anyone, whatever their alignment, choose to make the world morally homeostatic? What end is being sought, and why would they choose such an end? Because to me, "seeking balance" by making sure there is just as much evil as there is good in the world makes absolutely no sense to me, and perhaps someone is up to the task of providing a rational explaination.
Sure, I agree such actions/motivations are pretty out-of-this-world, and very few mortal beings would partake of them. I just don't see maintaining a Neutral alignment as requiring such actions/motivations, rather, Neutral alignment (the most common alignment for humanoids) can be maintained by your actions not straying too far towards a balance of good or evil, law or chaos. It's a GM call as to what consitutes crossing 'lines' of alignment balance.
Alignment is also perscriptive because in the art of role-playing people act in character with their alignment.
Well, I would say 'in the art of role-playing' people portary their character in line with the character's personality and motivations that have been established up to that point, with the understanding that there is a certain amount of cosmic flux that can intrude upon that.
For example, do you leave your character's alignment line blank before beginning a game, and only after completing an adventure/campaign or retiring a character, do you decide to measure up the sum total of his/her actions with the DM to determine your character's alignment?
No. Because at any moment in the game a Detect Alignment spell, or Smite, or Class Feature that depends on Alignment could be called into play, and thus Alignment at least potentially matters from Round 1 of play. For me, choosing to write in the characters Alignment is not about promising to fulfill that alignment, but is a measurement of the character's net sum of past actions. Whether I write it in, or I describe the character's past history to the GM (who could ask probing questions, or propose past scenarios that had happened to the character) who then 'judges'/measures the character's Alignment, is simply a matter of convenience/GM style to me. To some extent, player choosing starting Alignment is a 'shortcut' to informing the GM of the characters' past history.
The game does make clear that Alignment is a 'measurement' - any idea that you 'should' be acting in conformance to it is contrary to that idea, just as much as my example of measurements of height. And conveniently enough, this approach allows players to fully and freely portray whatever character/personality concept they want to, based upon 'human' factors, as a dramatic actor would, rather than worrying about how to play out 9 base alignments.
The d20 Modern system of allegiances suggests another way to regard good and evil alignment. A person with an allegiance to Good has an actual motivation to do good deeds, while a person with an allegiance to Evil has motivations that virtually require him to hurt others. A person whose alignment is neutral in regard to good and evil lacks either allegiance and has other motivations that are more important to him than any that would consistently lead him to perform good or evil acts. Such a person does not consciously "balance" good and evil, but considerations of good and evil are simply not his top priority.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If I might add a slightly different POV...
If good is doing works for others (possibly to the detriment of yourself) and evil is doing works for yourself (irregardless of the consequences to others) then neutral straddles the middle, doing benefits to yourself, as it harms no one.
TO wit.
The druid above with the hobgoblins.
Good: Try to warn the villiage and stop the hobgoblins. Possibly risking your own life and your charges to do so.
Evil: Determine which course of action will benefit you. If it is to rescue the villiage (so they owe you) then you'll do that. If it is to ally with the hobgoblins (or do nothing) then you'll do it. Even if it is to try to save the villiage, you won't sacrifice yourself to do so.
Neutral: Warn the villiage and duck and cover. You might support the villiage, but this way they at least have a fighting chance.
Again, if Lawful is adhering to a code or law, and Chaotic is overthrowing/ignoring a law or code, neutral is working within that law as much as possible.
Let's say our druid warns the villiage and then agrees to help them.
Holding to the word of the offer is lawful.
Holding to the spirit of the offer is chaotic. (If you wild shape into a bird and fly to warn the garrison to send help, you are helping the villiage, but not directly. Thus chaotic good. If you agree to help then run away, chaotic evil.)
Then Neutral would be holding to the word, until the spirit is more important. (trying to slow/harass the hobgoblins, then when it becomes too much, run for help/run away.)
Of course in this system, intent is as important as action To use a Lawful evil example, Shadrach in his brief career a) helped heal a thief's guild, b) saved the city at risk to himself, and c) started an orphanage. He didn't suddenly become good because he a) knew the guild would owe him, and a few loyal rogues could be useful b) knew that as a famous hero his actions would be less scrutinized and c) knew for his ultimate goal (ascend to godhood) he'd need followers. He also kept his word, respected his friends, and repaid all debts. There's no reason not to.
I'm still not sure I buy into the idea that the guy just letting Evil walk by and not doing anything about it at all just "Well not my problem" isn't an evil act.
As this is the core of most of your argument, if we can't agree on this we won't agree on anything. =)
The books don't state that "doing nothing" is an Evil act, nor do they even hint at it. If he were actively aiding the Hobgoblins/fiends/etc., or deceiving the village into thinking all is well and they're not in danger, I could see an argument being made. Remaining uninvolved completely? No, not Evil. Not anything, and thus Neutral.
As a side note, a Paladin in the same situation taking the same action risks his/her status not for performing an Evil act but for failing to do Good, as well as violating other parts of his/her ethos (to protect the innocent, to battle evil directly, etc.).
I'm going to use myself as an amusing example:
I hate, with a fiery passion, the notion that Good=Altruism and Selfishness=Evil. To my understanding, altruism has been the root of many an evil, and selfishness has worked rather an incredible (or incredited, at least) amount of good. Putting others perpetually above oneself, regardless of who they are to you, is idiotic. Self-sacrifice is not merely absurd, it is downright insane - if you sacrifice your self, you have nothing to contribute to the world.
That said, I'm not a serial killer, nor even a thief. I don't kick puppies; I don't pop childrens' balloons at carnivals. So where does that place me? According to some standards, I am most certainly Evil. According to my own, I am Good, because it is Good and Right to work for oneself, to develop oneself into a valuable person, and to leave other people bloody well free to do the same. Now I'm not presenting this argument as something you should accept, but given that I do - doesn't that make me Neutral by the game's standards?
There are two ways, off the top of my head, that I could write that druid. In one, he grumbles that they're heading towards the village he trades with, and the pub he likes to sit in on occasion with passing rangers, sharing a pint. They do very decent ale there, blast it, and he likes the barkeep, decent fellow. Bloody hobgoblins aren't going to change that, if he has anything to say about it.
The second way is : Wasn't that tavern full of fine, young men all itching for an adventure? Didn't that barkeep complain that nothing ever happens around here? Well, now's their chance, who is he to take it away from them? Not his fight...and when it comes down to it, he couldn't fight every bloody fight in the world, anyhow, could he? Where does it end? Running full-tilt across Golarion diving into besieged towns and villages without a thought for his own life? Aren't there local militias for that sort of thing, full of folks with a vested interest and at least as much power as he could lend? Probably more.
|
|
I'm going to use myself as an amusing example:
I hate, with a fiery passion, the notion that Good=Altruism and Selfishness=Evil. To my understanding, altruism has been the root of many an evil, and selfishness has worked rather an incredible (or incredited, at least) amount of good. Putting others perpetually above oneself, regardless of who they are to you, is idiotic. Self-sacrifice is not merely absurd, it is downright insane - if you sacrifice your self, you have nothing to contribute to the world.
Altruism does not automatically mean "self-sacrifice," just as selfishness does not automatically equal psychopathic narcissism. It simply means genuinely caring for the welfare of those other than oneself, and taking actions to benefit them. One can be altruistic AND selfish, i.e., you can care both about your own welfare and the welfare of others at the same time.
But yes, complete altruism at the expense of all regard for the self can be self-destructive and dangerous, just as complete selfishness and utter disregard for everyone other than oneself can be dangerous and ultimately self-destructive.
That said, I'm not a serial killer, nor even a thief. I don't kick puppies; I don't pop childrens' balloons at carnivals. So where does that place me? According to some standards, I am most certainly Evil. According to my own, I am Good, because it is Good and Right to work for oneself, to develop oneself into a valuable person, and to leave other people bloody well free to do the same. Now I'm not presenting this argument as something you should accept, but given that I do - doesn't that make me Neutral by the game's standards?
Short answer: It depends.
Not all good people are automatically altruistic. Not all evil people are automatically selfish. Selfish individuals can end up consciously and willingly serving a greater good through their actions, while utterly selfless people can perpetuate atrocities in the belief that they too are serving a greater good. Selfishness=evil and altruism=good are just rules of thumb, not necessarily set-in-stone metaphysical concepts of objective morality. However, do keep in mind that going out of one's way to help others generally is one of the major defining characteristics of the heroic.
Also, in D&D and Pathfinder, your moral and ethical standing is influenced by two factors: Your mental state (i.e., your intentions), and your actions. If you have no intention of helping anyone other than yourself (and perhaps those you have well-established emotional/familial ties to), but also no intention of necessarily hurting anyone to benefit yourself, you have morally Neutral intentions. And if you never take any actions that benefit anyone other than yourself, but you also do not act in ways that are harmful to others, except in reaction to those who try to harm you first, you're pretty much morally Neutral in the D&D/Pathfinder universe (not in real life, where I am sure you are a swell, decent person).
And I do not think too many people look at themselves and think "I am a morally True Neutral person" or "I am a Lawful Evil person." Almost everyone believes that their understanding of morality is the best, and that those who are in opposition to their beliefs are either incorrect at best and evil at worst. However, keep in mind that in the Pathfinder Universe, there exists Objective Morality. So no matter how good someone may see themself as, there is a moral standard existing outside themselves which is judging them (and even judging the Gods!) to be on the whole good, neutral or evil. Thus, even though a being such as Asmodeus thinks he is the hero of his own story and the ultimate arbiter of morality, believing that his way of judging the Universe is morally correct, he is still objectively the ultimate incarnation of all that is Lawful and Evil.
An aside: I love Ayn Rand's Objectivist Philosophy because, in my opinion, it presents the perfect illustration of a True Neutral philosophy: That is, one based on non-malicious rational self-interest and reciprocity.
|
I'm going to use myself as an amusing example:
I hate, with a fiery passion, the notion that Good=Altruism and Selfishness=Evil. To my understanding, altruism has been the root of many an evil, and selfishness has worked rather an incredible (or incredited, at least) amount of good. Putting others perpetually above oneself, regardless of who they are to you, is idiotic. Self-sacrifice is not merely absurd, it is downright insane - if you sacrifice your self, you have nothing to contribute to the world.
And here comes the Ayn Rand. Oy vey.
While it's true that self-sacrifice does mean you will be unable to contribute afterward, if you are a selfish being any good you do for the rest of the world will be ultimately incidental. Whereas the sacrifice-- particularly shared sacrifice among many selfless individuals---can do great good, the ongoing life of a self-interested person is overall only going to benefit him/herself. S/he might do some good for others or society, but that will never be their goal, and any good done will be ultimately outweighed by the fact that continued self interest will require sacrificing others for their own gain or preservation.
As a communal species, 'altruism' is the basis of nearly all morality as it's the only real advantage we have.
Your own Druid is a pretty vicious individual, himself, and if everybody were like that society would cease to function. In the first scenario their life and death is contingent upon how much he likes the village. If the barkeep's ale stops being up to snuff and he gets into a row with some of the locals, they're on their own.
In the second, he's using a pretty flimsy and ridiculous straw man to justify not taking any action in others' defense. We're not even talking about somebody whose actions are limited to the good of their own people or tribe or environment, but specifically themselves alone.
An aside: I love Ayn Rand's Objectivist Philosophy because, in my opinion, it presents the perfect illustration of a True Neutral philosophy: That is, one based on non-malicious rational self-interest and reciprocity
To me it follows much more closely to Neutral Evil. Reciprocity is only offered according to how much the other person has to offer you. The only thing bounding a group of Objectivists together would be the knowledge that each of them will only do for on another insofar as that person offers some benefit to them. Even a True Neutral person will have some connection, although it may only be limited to immediate family or tribe.
An aside: I love Ayn Rand's Objectivist Philosophy because, in my opinion, it presents the perfect illustration of a True Neutral philosophy: That is, one based on non-malicious rational self-interest and reciprocity.To me it follows much more closely to Neutral Evil. Reciprocity is only offered according to how much the other person has to offer you. The only thing bounding a group of Objectivists together would be the knowledge that each of them will only do for on another insofar as that person offers some benefit to them. Even a True Neutral person will have some connection, although it may only be limited to immediate family or tribe.
On its own, I'd say it lacks the active malevolence to truly qualify as Evil. However I could see it very easily being used to justify an Evil character's behavior. Some of the characters in the books, from what I've heard without reading them....
|
|
An aside: I love Ayn Rand's Objectivist Philosophy because, in my opinion, it presents the perfect illustration of a True Neutral philosophy: That is, one based on non-malicious rational self-interest and reciprocity.To me it follows much more closely to Neutral Evil. Reciprocity is only offered according to how much the other person has to offer you. The only thing bounding a group of Objectivists together would be the knowledge that each of them will only do for on another insofar as that person offers some benefit to them. Even a True Neutral person will have some connection, although it may only be limited to immediate family or tribe.
Indeed. However, to be truly evil, it is not enough that one does not care to help others, and never intends to help others. One must take that extra step to be truly malicious in order to qualify as "evil." Thus, a person following an Objectivist philosophy must actively hurt others (or lead other people to be hurt) for his own benefit to be considered truly evil.
On its own, I'd say it lacks the active malevolence to truly qualify as Evil. However I could see it very easily being used to justify an Evil character's behavior. Some of the characters in the books, from what I've heard without reading them....
This. But I would recommend reading the Ayn Rand books before passing judgment on the characters as being evil through second-hand sources, simply for the fact that it denigrates the concept of "evil." Again, keep in mind that I am arguing that most of the "heroes" in Ayn Rand's literature are not paragon's of virtue and goodness, but rather exemplars of unadulterated True Neutrality, just as Asmodeus is the ultimate exemplar of Lawful Evil. I am not saying that they are "good guys", but I would not label them as "bad guys" either.
Good people think inaction is evil in the face of conflict and evil people think inaction is neutral.
Argh. The introduction of real-world philosophic debate into alignment discussions is like putting firearms into a high-fantasy setting...
Good people think inaction is evil in the face of conflict and evil people think inaction is neutral.
That may or may not be true, but isn't what's being debated ;)