Goblin Squad Member
|
This issue of alignment has raised a hornets nest of issues. It seems that many disagree that choosing to fulfill a contract shouldn’t result in an alignment change to lawful. I tend to agree, as there are solid reasons why neutral and chaotic characters will choose to keep to the terms of a contract, while still wanting the freedom to RP their characters alignment in accord with what they’ve selected.
For instance it seems perfect reasonable for a CG crafter to keep their contract to create various goods. If they have a tendency to renege on their contracts, then few customers would be willing to buy from them, once the word gets out.
It is also reasonable for most characters in the River Kingdoms to keep their sworn word, regardless of their alignment. As most won’t want to deal with the consequences, if they break their word.
As previously suggested by others and myself, it seems a lot of these issues could be resolved if we had a reputation system that relates to how trustworthy a person is, in relation to their keeping of contracts and abiding by their oaths.
This would allow a CG or even NE character to select during character creation their starting reputation (Trustworthy, Usually Trustworthy, Untrustworthy), which would then be modified by their IG actions.
Another option would be to treat reputation as similar to light side dark side points (from SWTOR). Everyone starts out at zero. There in games actions then directly affects where they sit on the reputation scale. If a characters reputation score could be easily viewed by others, then it will give everyone a fair idea on whether or not to trust them.
How does separate the lawful alignment sound? Being lawful may have different meanings.
- "lawful" in a deity worship (I've no idea if programing is possible to portray a character's belief in a video game, so I assume simplying it to being loyal to a deity's belief system would be more doable)
- lawful in a nation
- lawful in a faction
- lawful in daily lives
Being a paladin means the character is going to be "lawful" to the code (and usually the paladin faction s/he belongs to), but the character isn't necessary to be obedient under a nation's influence. The paladin is still supposed to be "lawful" in daily lives, not roaming around murdering villagers/raiding poor commoners' harvest sites.
A lawful rogue under a kingdom's service (a royal spymaster) is lawful to the country but doesn't necessarily be "lawful" in other regards. A barbarian can be "lawful" and obedient toward his clan(faction), but the other faction/kingdom/villages they loot will not perceive them as lawful. And so on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As previously suggested by others and myself, it seems a lot of these issues could be resolved if we had a reputation system that relates to how trustworthy a person is, in relation to their keeping of contracts and abiding by their oaths.
Here's a greater question in regard to that, considering trustworthyness and law/chaos as 2 seperate ideas.
What is law/chaos. Name one computer judgeable action that can in fact be considered lawful or chaotic in relation to a player and other players other than them keeping a stated action/word.
If it has no bearing on player to player relation, then it is a completely worthless concept (NPC interactions are not intended to be the driving force of the game, and really I still can barely come up with computer judgable NPC actions for law/chaos either).
If so then we just remove law/chaos, rename it trustworthy/untrustworthy, and call it a day? The only thing in pathfinder lore that actually requires non-lawfulness, is barbarians. To which I've said before, I don't think alignment tied classes are such a good idea in an MMO, and really even if they do want to go that route, barbarian is the only class that requires non-lawful. Rogues bards, rangers etc... have no alignment restrictions and no reason to fear being "lawful".
We know evil is going to require you to do bad things that people won't like to become evil. Why is it that no-one see's any harm in evil involving doing things that many don't like, but being chaotic is entirely unreasonable for people not to want to put important things in your hands?
IMO chaotic has kind of lost it's meaning at this point, people don't honestly see chaotic as down with the establishment, we need to free people from the laws. We see chaotic as a tick box to show that my character is a rebel. Chaotic as it is used in most cases, is much like teenagers, who prove their non-conformity by getting mohawks, tattoo's piercings etc... to match the rest of the non-conformists.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's a greater question in regard to that, considering trustworthyness and law/chaos as 2 seperate ideas.What is law/chaos. Name one computer judgeable action that can in fact be considered lawful or chaotic in relation to a player and other players other than them keeping a stated action/word.
If it has no bearing on player to player relation, then it is a completely worthless concept (NPC interactions are not intended to be the driving force of the game, and really I still can barely come up with computer judgable NPC actions for law/chaos either).
If so then we just remove law/chaos, rename it trustworthy/untrustworthy, and call it a day? The only thing in pathfinder lore that actually requires non-lawfulness, is barbarians. To which I've said before, I don't think alignment tied classes are such a good idea in an MMO, and really even if they do want to go that route, barbarian is the only class that requires non-lawful. Rogues bards, rangers etc... have no alignment restrictions and no reason to fear being "lawful"...
I have no problem with removing the law/chaos axis of alignments, other than it throws a huge spanner in the works in relation to the restrictions on settlement alignment.
As you point out the good/evil alignment axis is much more important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually do not agree that "the means justifies the end" attitude is Western...in fact I would say it is extremely un-Western. When I first considered the idea it was difficult for me to even think of what that attitude would create as far as behaviours go, it was utterly foreign. I expect it would create a very relaxed, no rush, attitude...much like we are told elves have (who tend to be chaotic). Elves look at the human cultures and think they are impulsive and mercurial.
Being chaotic then involves living more in the moment...and if that means tomorrow something is not done that probably should have been, well then that is acceptable. I have never heard this type of outlook on life promoted...but does make sense if one lives off the land, in tune with natures whims, and/or lives for an extremely long time...the little things become even smaller.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith, aye, I don't think I've actually seen "the means justify the end" before this thread. I guess it feels un-western, after all. "The end justifies the means" is usually used in cases where someone has done something and the methods used were less than savory or less than honorable. So a saying to cover up transgressions by saying the end result matters more than sins it involved.
I think we all recognize that our real world moral codes don't correspond exactly to the one we will see in PFO. I think the are some things that we all know, like "the end justifies the means", but that's based on our slightly mismatched moral codes. I find it hard to write about this stuff; I keep bumping against weighted words and concepts that mean something in our system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, we also need to remember we are talking about the extreme cases. A LE person would be the extreme "the ends justify the means person" with no balance. LG character works towards the ends...and can justify their actions through that finality, but they are also balance it with compassion for the fellow man...even those who think differently. Lawful Neutral would be a less compassionate approach, but still not raw untempered law.
And of course...all of us are probably toward the neutral end of LG...the extreme end of LG would probably have a hard time fitting in western society too...simply because of their rigidity.
I totally agree about the language barriers, I think it is fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So it seems in-game that alignments (unlike the real world) will be separated into the law/chaos and good/evil axis. The former dealing with transactional reliability and the latter with murder and stealing depending on where you perform these actions. It has been stated that assasination, in person or by proxy, will be considered evil. Official states of war will mitigate these situations to an undetermined degree. I really like the idea of alignment status being dependant on your chosen deities' portfolio but that may be more than game mechanics can handle.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I actually do not agree that "the means justifies the end" attitude is Western...in fact I would say it is extremely un-Western. When I first considered the idea it was difficult for me to even think of what that attitude would create as far as behaviours go, it was utterly foreign. I expect it would create a very relaxed, no rush, attitude...much like we are told elves have (who tend to be chaotic). Elves look at the human cultures and think they are impulsive and mercurial.
Being chaotic then involves living more in the moment...and if that means tomorrow something is not done that probably should have been, well then that is acceptable. I have never heard this type of outlook on life promoted...but does make sense if one lives off the land, in tune with natures whims, and/or lives for an extremely long time...the little things become even smaller.
Vogons are Lawful. (LN or LE, it's a toss up:
They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without an order, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters. If you want to get a drink from a Vogon, stick your finger down his throat. If you want to annoy a vogon, feed his grandmother to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Vogons are Lawful. (LN or LE, it's a toss up:
Absolutely LN, The HHGTTG is very clear that they are not evil. A slightly longer version of that quote actually directly states this.
Here is what to do if you want to get a lift from a Vogon: forget it. They are one of the most unpleasant races in the Galaxy. Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters. The best way to get a drink out of a Vogon is to stick your finger down his throat, and the best way to irritate him is to feed his grandmother to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. On no account should you allow a Vogon to read poetry at you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way I see it..
Law = You are willing to sublimate your own ego to some external source of authority that will dictate your actions...
"It doesn't matter how I FEEL about the matter. I look to X to determine how I should act."
Chaos = You are unwilling to sublimate your own ego to any external source to determine your course of action.
"I don't care what X says, I know how I FEEL about the matter and I shall do as I believe is best."
Good = Ones actions are intended to achieve the well being of as many other beings as possible.
"I don't slay the wicked because I hate them. I slay them beause it is the only way to prevent even greater wickedness to befall the world. I do not hate the wicked, I pity them."
Evil = Ones actions are intended to maximize ones own benefit. The benefit of others is of no concern whatsoever.
"I'm sorry freind, but I like that cloak you are wearing. Yes, I could take it from you and leave you with your life, but that would provide you the opportunity to revenge yourself against me at some future point. We can't have that now, can we?."
Lawfull Good characters have an unshakeable faith that some external authority is best in determining how to achieve the greatest well being for all. They'll follow said authority even when it's dictates don't make sense to them or cause thier internal compass unease because they trust that authority more then they trust thier own judgement.
Neutral Good characters desire to bring about the greatest well being for all. They are willing to consider external authorties when determining how they should act but constantly check those against thier own internal compasses. They may be willing to defer thier judgement to external sources some of the time if logic dictates those sources are better equiped to make the specific judgement then they are...but will refute such sources in other cases where thier internal judgement on some issue is clear and strong.
Chaotic Good characters desire to bring about the greatest well being of all but they believe following ones own internal compass and feelings is the only way to reliably achieve such. When they are mistaken, it is due to inaccurate data that was availble to them not due to an insufficiency in thier judgement or values.
Lawfull Evil characters sublimate themselves to some external authority because they believe that authority is thier best chance of maximizing thier own personal benefit. They care about that authority because ultimately it helps them. They may be willing to make temporary sacrifices of thier own well being for said authority because in the end, they believe it will lead to even greater benefit to them.
Chaotic Evil characters follow thier own dictates because ultimately that's the only way you can make sure you are benefited most. They won't so much serve an external authority as they might be willing to bargain with it. When they strike such a bargain they'll be constantly looking for the authority to double-cross them, and they'll be constantly looking for ways to double-cross the authority to thier own benefit.
In the example given of a soldier being ordered to put a city to the sword...
The Lawfull character MIGHT do it, but only if he believed to officer giving the order was faithfully and accurately acting in accordance with whatever authority the character ultimately put his faith in.
"The Captain may have given the order, but the Emperor would never approve of this if he were here."
The Chaotic character MIGHT follow the order, but not because it was an order only because it matched with what he personaly felt was the best course of action in the situation.
The Good character MIGHT refuse the order on the basis of it doing great harm to many but MIGHT be willing to follow it if convinced it was neccesary to bring about greater well being for all.
The Evil character MIGHT refuse the order on the basis that it worked against his interests but MIGHT be willing to follow it if convinced it would benefit him even more in the long run.
YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way I see it..
Law = You are willing to sublimate your own ego to some external source of authority that will dictate your actions...
"It doesn't matter how I FEEL about the matter. I look to X to determine how I should act."
Chaos = You are unwilling to sublimate your own ego to any external source to determine your course of action.
"I don't care what X says, I know how I FEEL about the matter and I shall do as I believe is best."
Good = Ones actions are intended to achieve the well being of as many other beings as possible.
"I don't slay the wicked because I hate them. I slay them beause it is the only way to prevent even greater wickedness to befall the world. I do not hate the wicked, I pity them."
Evil = Ones actions are intended to maximize ones own benefit. The benefit of others is of no concern whatsoever.
"I'm sorry freind, but I like that cloak you are wearing. Yes, I could take it from you and leave you with your life, but that would provide you the opportunity to revenge yourself against me at some future point. We can't have that now, can we?."
Lawfull Good characters have an unshakeable faith that some external authority is best in determining how to achieve the greatest well being for all. They'll follow said authority even when it's dictates don't make sense to them or cause thier internal compass unease because they trust that authority more then they trust thier own judgement.
Neutral Good characters desire to bring about the greatest well being for all. They are willing to consider external authorties when determining how they should act but constantly check those against thier own internal compasses. They may be willing to defer thier judgement to external sources some of the time if logic dictates those sources are better equiped to make the specific judgement then they are...but will refute such sources in other cases where thier internal judgement on some issue is clear and strong.
Chaotic Good characters desire to bring about the greatest well being of...
Well stated. However, I don't know if an MMO's AI can handle adjudicating all of these actions effectively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've always felt the key to portraying evil is in the psychological quirk of "People doing what they think is right." Evil tends to justify much of what it does terms of "I did what I had to to get mine" or "They had it comin". They don't wake up in the morning thinking "what a fine day to Do Evil! now where's that bucket of puppies!"
Now, in the realm and fiction of truly horrific Evil Gods that whot walk the Land, I could see someone waking up and prepping to do things they know are against society or terrible, but always with the knowledge that their God's will comes with reward, and is a righteous cause, etc. Justifications abound in this type of mentality, with mental acrobatics most modern people (thankfully) don't have an actual frame of reference on.
my 2 cents anyway...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They should implement a system sort of like Hackmaster did, the Honor stat. This stat was a measure of your compliance with the dictates of your alignment and class restrictions. People with high honor weren't necessarily good, and people with low honor weren't necessarily evil, because good and evil characters could just as easily follow or not follow the restrictions that they are supposed to be bound by.
Now this stat wasn't solely based on alignment, but it was a factor. It was a reflection of whether you were following your alignment restrictions, the tennants of your patron god, your classes restrictions, how you interacted with npc's, and also the people you hung around with. If you hung around with people with higher or lower Honor, your stat would start averaging and shifting towards whatever the group average was. So this was also a reason to be careful with who you associated with on a regular basis.
Alot of games didn't really have proper punishments for people who didn't follow the restrictions placed upon them. With this stat that essentially monitored all of these infractions, there could be more consequences. Because you can always cast a spell to see what someone's alignment is, but how do you know if they've always been that alignment? Or how do you know if they have a billion alignment infractions? With this other stat (and as I said, please note it's not just based on alignment), everyone in the world had a sense of this stat whether they knew what your alignment was, and they would treat you accordingly. And the God's would lay the smack down on people who swayed too far in any direction. If your Honor was too low, or too high (which would be stepping outside of your station in life... but the system was complex).
And I do realize that this is a stat from another game system, but the Hackmaster system was essentially ad&d with some tweaked rules, and this honor stat makes a lot of sense. Or atleast implementing something similar.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You could tie a number of things into a reputation system. And evil person can still be honest and keep their word, among other things. And acting within the bounds of your alignment and other restrictions that you have placed upon yourself. Like if you for example complete contracts, or if you join some society and work within the rules of the society. Or join a religion and follow the rules of your religion.
On a separate alignment note: For the record , like in D&D, if I see anyone with a True Neutral alignment... I will kill them on sight. True Neutral characters will betray you if you start winning.
Also, Chaotic Neutral is the cheaters alignment, for those people who can't play within alignment restrictions and just want to be able to do whatever they want.
On a separate alignment note: For the record , like in D&D, if I see anyone with a True Neutral alignment... I will kill them on sight. True Neutral characters will betray you if you start winning.
Also, Chaotic Neutral is the cheaters alignment, for those people who can't play within alignment restrictions and just want to be able to do whatever they want.
True Neutral can be someone who balances all things as you say, or it can be someone who simply has no conviction to uphold any specific ideal. And killing them on sight for something they might do, is in my book, a pretty CE action.
And I'd disagree on the Chaotic Neutral being the cheaters alignment. Currently playing a CN witch, who is very much a wild card, and as it's player I am often at odds with it. I have done what I consider to be very stupid things in order to stick to my CN alignment.
Now I've been thinking about Alignment a lot lately and I'm concerned that it is a big mistake as far as a sandbox MMO goes. It all depends on the mechanics behind how alignment shifts and changes.
If they system is repeatable, every time I do Y I get an X point shift in my alignment, it will be something that is farmed and players will grind it. Having an alignment will simply be a matter of how much time you spent repeating the most efficient way of farming the points needed to shift it to what you want. It'll leave alignments being pretty meaningless unless there is a good way to tell who follows their alignment and who manipulates it. Unfortunately, role players who legitimately shift alignments for character reasons will get caught in the cross fire.
How will alignment gains/losses affect a party of players? If one player in group does something evil does everyone get hit for it, or just the player responsible?
Part of what makes alignments work in tabletop gaming is that, a reasonable DM presented with a reasonable argument, can change their mind on a subject. An MMO is set, it cannot be flexible or reasoned with. I just see a major headache in the making that will be deeply imbedded in multiple systems of the game.
Neutral alignments are not a reason to kill and anyone who plays that is playing it wrong. All neutral means is that you feel no compunction to do one thing or another with respect to upholding life or death. While you may not find anything wrong with killing an innocent, you see the value in a society where that sort of thing is discouraged and you likely don't practice it yourself since it could be done to you in return. Similarly, you see nothing wrong with safeguarding life. It's neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some people of this alignment may just fence sit and not want to be involved with anything, however an adventuring character is not of this sort. An example given in the 2nd edition players handbook about a true neutral character (a druid in this case): "a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnolls' clan from being totally exterminated."
Characters like this can never be relied upon, and they will and must betray you as soon as you have the upper hand over an opponent. Now granted that as I said that everyone of this alignment may not react this exact way. The truth boils down to the fact that these characters are not true to anyone or anything. So in a role playing environment instead of waiting for the chance to let them betray me, I will kill them on sight. I would rather have someone who has a defined set of values that is predictable whether or not they are on my side (atleast I know where I stand with them), than a true neutral character. Now you may disagree with me, and that is your right. But if you're a true neutral character and I see you, atleast you know how I'm going to react. Because I have a stance, and I stick to it.
Then you're evil, good to know. You stand for the murder of all beings of a certain alignment whether or not they deserve it. Neutral does not mean they *must* turn on you. You're looking at it wrong. They might turn on you if they see a reason to but they're not compelled to do anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then you're evil, good to know. You stand for the murder of all beings of a certain alignment whether or not they deserve it. Neutral does not mean they *must* turn on you. You're looking at it wrong. They might turn on you if they see a reason to but they're not compelled to do anything.
I think what he is reffering to is the balance nueturals. Haven't heard the concept in a long time but basically the concept behind the balance ones are that there should be equal amounts of good and evil int he world and they are responsible to even the numbers. I haven't heard of anyone using that concept in a very long time, and doubt it's still referenced in any modern sources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I look at it this way.
A lawful teetotaler is going to look at the sign that says, "No hunting of His most Royal Majesty's deer," and goes "Well, shucks. I'll have to find another place to hunt or something else to eat."
A chaotic carouser sees that same sign and say, "Eh, that's probably an old sign that they forgot to take down. Besides, if they really wanted to enforce something like that, they'd post guards and I'm kinda hungry. Deer sounds like it would make a lovely dinner," and go about hunting blue blooded deer.
"Don’t let rules get in the way of enjoying what is truly good in life."
—Placard of Wisdom, line 1
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You stand for the murder of all beings of a certain alignment whether or not they deserve it.
Oh, they deserve it. And that's what they get for not picking a side. I will not be sniped by a fence sitter who is hoping that the people with opinions who are actually doing stuff will up and eliminate each other or weaken each other enough that they can stroll in and reap the spoils.
I'm role playing prejudiced against neutral people... that's right I said it... and I'm fantasy racist against Elves too.... so you're all on the list as well :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You stand for the murder of all beings of a certain alignment whether or not they deserve it.Oh, they deserve it. And that's what they get for not picking a side. I will not be sniped by a fence sitter who is hoping that the people with opinions who are actually doing stuff will up and eliminate each other or weaken each other enough that they can stroll in and reap the spoils.
I'm role playing prejudiced against neutral people... that's right I said it... and I'm fantasy racist against Elves too.... so you're all on the list as well :P
I'm a chaotic good Dwarf. Am I safe?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm role playing prejudiced against neutral people... that's right I said it... and I'm fantasy racist against Elves too.... so you're all on the list as well :P
If you kill neutral people and Elves because of who they are, then you are evil. You can try to justify it all you want- the choice to justify anything shifts you towards chaotic.
I think what he is reffering to is the balance nueturals. Haven't heard the concept in a long time but basically the concept behind the balance ones are that there should be equal amounts of good and evil int he world and they are responsible to even the numbers. I haven't heard of anyone using that concept in a very long time, and doubt it's still referenced in any modern sources.
That's completely foreign to the Pathfinder concept of neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@LazarX - I frankly think that alignment will be a lot like faction points in other games, spread throughout the game experience. We'll do things to please some gods and avoid things that opposing gods want. In PFO we probably won't be able to please everyone all of the time; we'll pick a few factions (gods/alignments) and stick with them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you kill neutral people and Elves because of who they are, then you are evil. You can try to justify it all you want- the choice to justify anything shifts you towards chaotic.
That's an incorrect line of logic. If I was chaotic I might kill these select people some of the time, and other times I would kill others or maybe not kill at all. The fact that I'm sticking to my guns and following a strict reaction based off of rules leans towards lawful. And who cares if it's evil, I never said that I was good. Evil, or Good, atleast it's a side. Were I good, then I would just choose not to associate with the two peoples in question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@LazarX - Virtually nothing you've read in this thread represents the design direction of the game. Just pay attention to the blog, not the comments on this one. The discussion has gone down a rabbit hole and isn't real productive at the moment.
The purpose of alignment is to make choices meaningful. It is to provide a sense of immersion. And it is to give people interesting things to do with their characters - a fall from grace or a redemption from an evil path are great stories and we want people to be able to experience them.
The minutea of who can kill whom and what alignment that makes one is actually pretty far away from the spirit of the game and not something I find really productive. Alignment debates are one of the oldest, least productive, and frankly repetitive parts of the hobby and I tend to tune them out as they rarely (if ever) generate any new ideas and eventually devolve to people talking past each other or agreeing to disagree.
@LazarX - Virtually nothing you've read in this thread represents the design direction of the game. Just pay attention to the blog, not the comments on this one. The discussion has gone down a rabbit hole and isn't real productive at the moment.
I'm curious as to what your design direction is, because to me, nailing the alignment mechanics is a major part in how well many of the important game pieces will work. Class features, nations, a whole bunch of things seem to be touched by alignment, and alignment is difficult to do right in my opinion.
Can you shed any light on it Ryan?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm curious as to what your design direction is, because to me, nailing the alignment mechanics is a major part in how well many of the important game pieces will work.
The RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me! blog had a good discussion on the topic, with links.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@LazarX - Virtually nothing you've read in this thread represents the design direction of the game. Just pay attention to the blog, not the comments on this one. The discussion has gone down a rabbit hole and isn't real productive at the moment.I'm curious as to what your design direction is, because to me, nailing the alignment mechanics is a major part in how well many of the important game pieces will work. Class features, nations, a whole bunch of things seem to be touched by alignment, and alignment is difficult to do right in my opinion.
Can you shed any light on it Ryan?
I'm still sketchy on what's what, also. But first, I am very happy to see a separation of REPUTATION and ALIGNMENT. Makes a lot of sense.
Reputation - the social construct of eg % completion likihood of past contracts and so on, or rating from previous employers locally relevant information. So I expect this will be important at the trade/contract level?
Alignment - Might influence who you hang out with, what sort of politics you are operating with and what sort of creatures you prefer to kill, and various alignment shifts based on different types of actions??
As said, I'm still hazy on this, but maybe alignment is guiding how you should operate in general and reputation is how other PC's can trust you or not for various interactions?
/my best 2 cents!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what he is reffering to is the balance nueturals. Haven't heard the concept in a long time but basically the concept behind the balance ones are that there should be equal amounts of good and evil int he world and they are responsible to even the numbers. I haven't heard of anyone using that concept in a very long time, and doubt it's still referenced in any modern sources.That's completely foreign to the Pathfinder concept of neutral.
This definition of neutral is listed in both the core rule book and the Pathfinder Wiki.
No, it's not.
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
[...]
Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
There's zero mention of a "balance" of good and evil acts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality...
...Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run." ~ CRB
"Those who have chosen to enforce a 'natural balance' between all the other ethics are also considered neutral, these often include those who worship the perfect balance of nature, particularly druids." ~ Pathfinder Wiki
You and I have vastly different interpretations of the same text. Also, I don't give a damn what a wiki says that the books don't directly state as it likely comes from 3rd party sources and is thus not published by Paizo so is therefore not Pathfinder canon.
I read
Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality
to mean they'll do whatever *they* think is the right thing to do without special bias to good or evil. This does not predicate themselves to maintaining a balance while it very well may contain a mix of good and evil acts.
Also, I take
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
to be the more "pacifistic" side of neutrality. Basically, I neither kill nor do I protect; I simply observe and don't interfere. This doesn't require any sort of "balance" either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This definition of neutral is listed in both the core rule book and the Pathfinder Wiki.I think what he is reffering to is the balance nueturals. Haven't heard the concept in a long time but basically the concept behind the balance ones are that there should be equal amounts of good and evil int he world and they are responsible to even the numbers. I haven't heard of anyone using that concept in a very long time, and doubt it's still referenced in any modern sources.That's completely foreign to the Pathfinder concept of neutral.
How exactly are you interpreting this? If someone murders an innocent child in cold blood, then saves one's life they are neutral? Or if they steal what they need to survive in hard times, and give what they have to others in good times they are neutral?
I would say if anything the interpretation involving murder should go under it's own alignment called "insane," but I would consider it more evil than neutral. A neutral character is not someone who goes around doing whatever evil they can get away with as long as they remember to balance them out with good deeds. They're more the person who sits there and watches as you get mugged, but wouldn't mug you themselves. Or who would mug you, but would help you if someone tried to murder you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How exactly are you interpreting this?
I assume you are asking me...although I am not sure because I do not see how the rest of your post is related at all.
I read Onishi's post to be referring to those who advocate a philosophical balance between the extremes of Good and Evil (and sometimes Law and Chaos). Those who think that the forces of Good and/or Evil should remain in balance in the world, think it is their job to insure this balance...and are willing to use coercion and/or force to do so.
That is exactly what "Some neutral characters...commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run." from the Core Rule book says.
These people have chosen a side in the war, Neutral...and will fight to maintain it. This is opposed to neutrals who as Pannath suggested...won't choose a side.
Additionally, I think there might be some confusion with the term "advocate"...my 2 year old advocates watching her favourite shows daily...and the US advocates democracy throughout the world...Rovagug advocates Chaos. There is a big range of implied force which can still be called advocate...in fact, any amount of force or coercion can be called advocating. Saying "They advocate the middle way of neutrality..." could mean anything from they argue the point when excessively inebriated to they are fanatically violent about it.
But whatever, I was just discussing...if people are getting pissing off I don't care enough to fight about metaphysics, especially that of a fantasy world in a roleplaying game. We can all just go on believing and playing as we each want.
For the record, I think Neutrals are a valid side in the "war", one I had hopes to "advocate"...and I hope GW does not eliminate it as an option.
Also, I don't give a damn what...Wow dude, you win...sorry for disagreeing.
Emo much? I didn't attack you so whatever. I simply said I don't care about something and why. The don't give a damn is simply to let you know it's not an argument with me. I don't buy it, period, so don't try to come up with some witty argument that unsupported material on a 3rd party site is supposed to have weight as I'll simply disregard it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, this thread is now completely useless. Welcome to The History of Alignment On The Internet.
Indeed this discussion is probably best left for after the 3-4 page long blog on alignment that most likely won't be out until after the tech demo is finished, considering alignment is something that hasn't been agreed upon in 35+ years of tabletop gaming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Emo much? I didn't attack you so whatever. I simply said I don't care about something and why. The don't give a damn is simply to let you know it's not an argument with me. I don't buy it, period, so don't try to come up with some witty argument that unsupported material on a 3rd party site is supposed to have weight as I'll simply disregard it.Also, I don't give a damn what...Wow dude, you win...sorry for disagreeing.
Ahem.
Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
Emphasis mine. Source Paizo's [link].
And I'm done with this thread.