Goblin Squad Member
|
We disagree, if by consistency you mean lawful. A chaotic good character can be very consistent in discerning between right and wrong. He could be the wisest man alive. That doesn't make him obedient to law, but rather to his personal conscience... and that is chaotic....
As I see it...internal codes are more about CONSISTANCY in conduct, Being.
...
This is where the disconnect is. The Chaotic character is not making the choice FOR the sake of consistancy. He's making it because he feel's that choice is best in each case, if it's consistant it's pure happenstance. The Lawful character makes choices BECAUSE they are consistant, he places vale in CONSISTANCY and ORDER itself...even if sometimes they lead to bad or stupid choices.
Maybe it would be helpfull to think of it a bit like OCD. As Lawful you step down the street never steping on a crack. No one told you to do that, you just decided to...but you'll keep doing it over and over whether it makes sense or not because you feel some intrinsic value in consistancy. The Chaotic character steps down the street not caring whether they step on a crack or not, because it doesn't matter. They might do it for half a block if it suits thier whim...but they feel no compulsion to keep doing it when it gets boring for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem for my way of looking at it comes from the question whether a code of conduct or set of recognized Laws issues from a Chaotic deity or town?
This leads to a situation I've observed being played out in the US since I began paying attention to such things (around the mid to late 1970's). I won't get into a big discussion of RW politics vs. faith, but I've been observing a government sponsored indoctrination program introduced when children start school and continuing throughout their lives in television, the media and music. Is main intent is to ensure that people obey the government over and above any religious considerations while still paying lip service to those religious principles as a way to bind the people to the laws and traditions they believe will allow them to maintain control. (This is my personal observation based on decades of consideration, I don't expect many to support such a theory, thus my statement about not starting a discussion about it). "Why did you write it? you might ask" because I'm an opinionated sob that's why :p
Such a thing can't translate into the games political system, nor would it be beneficial. I'm VERY interested in how settlement laws will be implemented though. Some will be easy, like "is slavery against the law?" Others won't be so easy, like "ore can only have a maximum markup of 100%". (I tried to come up with a question that the computer will have a difficult time recognizing and enforcing, but I'm drawing a blank ATM :p )
A law that would be difficult to implement would be something like "Women, or some other group, must be treated with respect". A law that requires a judgement call on the interaction between two people would be difficult to code.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also doesn't that mean that a Paladin might do what is classified as Chaotic acts by society and still be classified as lawful if his god is a chaotic god?
Yeah, it starts to get a little tricky there....but I think you also have to factor in WHO a character selects to follow or recognize as a source of authority. My impression is that a Chaotic God would have more tolerance for followers not always doing exactly as he pronounced. Individuals who are inclined to not always follow exactly some source of authority and value more latitude in personal behavior would tend to self-select Chaotic Gods....and Chaotic Gods would tend to be more comfortable/lenient with such followers.
Same thing for settlements...a constable in a Chaotic Good town would be fairly comfortable with "looking the other way" if an individual broke the letter of the law but no real harm came from it.
A constable in a lawful settlement would likely feel obligated to bring that person in because "You can't go making exceptions for people whenever you want".
So lawful = robot?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But if Chaos is the ability to choose freely, what is neutral?It's just halfway between the extremes.
Yup, I agree with this. Neutral might give SOME weight to order, consistancy, authority or the letter of the law...but at the end of the day, it's not the most important thing to them... so they are willing to be flexable when they feel it's important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So lawful = robot?
In the ultimate expression of lawful (as in lawful Outsider) probably not far off...like the ultimate expression of chaos is probably entropy.
But humans (and other mortals and Dieties in most pantheons) are neither robots nor pure entropy. They are very much more complex, thinking creatures which is why I always felt the use of Alignments wasn't very helpful and mostly avoided using them in campaigns I GM'd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not at all. Neutral considers the alignments Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil as elements of nature. Neutral seeks to nurture the whole by finding a harmonious and beneficial balance among those elements and to try to avoid unhealthy imbalances between them. Any one of the extreme alignments by itself would be very harmful, and nature would be incomplete were any one of them lost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also doesn't that mean that a Paladin might do what is classified as Chaotic acts by society and still be classified as lawful if his god is a chaotic god?Yeah, it starts to get a little tricky there....but I think you also have to factor in WHO a character selects to follow or recognize as a source of authority. My impression is that a Chaotic God would have more tolerance for followers not always doing exactly as he pronounced. Individuals who are inclined to not always follow exactly some source of authority and value more latitude in personal behavior would tend to self-select Chaotic Gods....and Chaotic Gods would tend to be more comfortable/lenient with such followers.
Same thing for settlements...a constable in a Chaotic Good town would be fairly comfortable with "looking the other way" if an individual broke the letter of the law but no real harm came from it.
A constable in a lawful settlement would likely feel obligated to bring that person in because "You can't go making exceptions for people whenever you want".
Isn't a truly Chaotic character an anarchist, so you really couldn't have a truly Chaotic town because a town run by Anarchy is not a town at all?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Zyric,
Probably true but you are talking about the extreme ends of the scale. It is afterall a sliding scale.
Again, one of the reasons I don't really like Alignments or find the particularly usefull. Human beings are far too complex to be quantified down to such simplistic labels. It usualy doesn't tell you all that much usefull about the individual, how the behave, what they value and how they are likely to act in a given situation.
In terms of settlements, in a PnP Campaign they are highly unlikely to be made up of individuals of just one or 2 alignments. I'd hazard that any decent sized settlement in a PnP Campaign has some representation from all 9 Alignments. So whenever I've read that outside of the context of PFO, I've pretty much assumed that just meant the reputation and power of the law and order types in such a place was low, effecting the general nature of the town (few laws, lax enforcement, etc).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Defining one thing with terms that can also be used to define something else isn't particularly helpful.
Your focus is wonderful but you are missing that none of the extremes seek to nurture any but their own alignment, seeks imbalance in its favor, and would turn all the other alignments its own way.
If Law seeks to relax its restrictions to relieve the people of its oppression it is partaking in neutrality. When Chaos seeks rules amongst its parties to organizae and build, it is partaking in Neutrality. When Good allows the penitent to return to the fold it partakes in neutrality. When evil backs off on the violence of the whip to let the victim recover and survive a little longer it partakes in Neutrality.
Extremists share the conceit that only they and their opponents matter. The neutral rescues what those titans trample in their callous disregard, and may defend it from further harm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Defining one thing with terms that can also be used to define something else isn't particularly helpful.Your focus is wonderful but you are missing that none of the extremes seek to nurture any but their own alignment, seeks imbalance in its favor, and would turn all the other alignments its own way.
If Law seeks to relax its restrictions to relieve the people of its oppression it is partaking in neutrality. When Chaos seeks rules amongst its parties to organizae and build, it is partaking in Neutrality. When Good allows the penitent to return to the fold it partakes in neutrality. When evil backs off on the violence of the whip to let the victim recover and survive a little longer it partakes in Neutrality.
Extremists share the conceit that only they and their opponents matter. The neutral rescues what those titans trample in their callous disregard, and may defend it from further harm.
Or it simply stands around indecisively flip-flopping while others take a stand for something ;)
I guess I see alignments overall as a way to group people together. Like the groups listed in the KS that are in control of the NPC starter towns. Each leans more toward a specific alignment and are recognized by that alignment. So to me alignments exist as a way to differentiate people and see which group they belong to. Maybe it's just helpful to me as a method to see where people fall between different organizations.
That doesn't help in attempting to translate alignments into a system the game can use to recognize actions by players, this will be one of the more tricky things the Devs have to conquer in making PFO in my opinion.
I see Chaos as the need for freedom. If a rule makes sense, the Chaotic character will often obey it until it stops appealing to him, at which point he'll look for ways to circumvent it. Depending on his morality, and personality, he will usually end up outright disobeying the rule (sometimes very soon after discovering it). Heck, Chaotics only go along with rules they do like sometimes--some of them might just disobey because they hate having to follow someone else's directions.
I see Law as the feeling that rules generally know best. If a rule doesn't make sense, the Lawful character will try to obey it until it directly breaks with his personality/morality, at which point he will look for ways to twist it. He may break it if he's Evil, for instance, and it threatens his well-being (or if he's Good and it threatens the innocent) but he will be very uncomfortable doing so. It's like asking a Good character to kill one innocent to save a city--it's one aspect of the character conflicting with another.
And I see Neutrality as having less of a preference. If a character is not especially motivated by a need for freedom or a need for order, a character will end up being Neutral.
Okay, I've given my speech. What are we talking about, again? :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Defining one thing with terms that can also be used to define something else isn't particularly helpful.If Law seeks to relax its restrictions to relieve the people of its oppression it is partaking in neutrality. When Chaos seeks rules amongst its parties to organizae and build, it is partaking in Neutrality. When Good allows the penitent to return to the fold it partakes in neutrality. When evil backs off on the violence of the whip to let the victim recover and survive a little longer it partakes in Neutrality.
Probably one of the better descriptions of the "corners of the box" regarding alignments. The system appears designed to cause players to conform to a standard of conduct and allow like minded (or at least like-actioned) players to group without everyone in that group to be able to recklessly attack others in their group without consequence.
We will all see some very creative individuals gaming the system no matter how robust, and we should be prepared to exact our own brand of justice to prevent these behaviors from causing a destructive environment from becoming persistent.
Not saying there should not be different alignments in different areas, groups, settlements and the like, but to allow players to function in a manner like others they commonly reside among, for comfort, security and benefit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So lawful = robot?
To some extent.
Its also important to remember that being lawful in a fantasy setting may abrogate any personal moral responsibility.
As opposed to the real world where "I did it because it was the law and I was ordered" is simply not seen as a reasonable excuse. This was firmly established at the post WWII Nuremberg trials where "obeying the law of the land" or "obeying orders" was no defense at all against charges of crimes against humanity.
And that's where the ethical half intervenes with the moral half. You aren't automatically exempt from moral responsibility just because your ethical responsibility supersedes it. That just moves you closer to Lawful Neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I fill like this has only gone so far because people cant see this as a moving bar with out limits, also people are not outsider
6 people find a wallet
the 1st look at the ID and is honer bond to find the person (GL to act orderly for others)
the 2nd turns it in to the lost and found (LN to act orderly)
the 3rd leaves the it (TN not to act or to act in the lest extreme way)
the 4th takes the cash (EN to act for ones self)
the 5th takes the cash the ID and money cards to use as he will (EC to act for ones self with no regard for order)
the 6th ask around before taking it (CN to act with in ones order but not always the orders given)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is such a tangled subject that its hard to make clear points without running into exceptions or inconsistencies.
Lawful characters should be following the laws of their religion (thou shalt not suffer the undead to exist), their personal codes (thou shalt always seat the lady first) and the law of the land (thou shalt not assault another) all at the same time. The confusion happens when those codes are at direct cross purposes, such as entering a city where sentient undead are citizens with rights.
My thoughts are that the Paladin should not disregard the laws of the city he is in if he entered it peacefully. If he wants to ignore the laws he should enter as an aggressor and not a visitor. However, this may be more the Good part of his alignment rather than the Lawful part. This ignores any issues of recognising the legitimacy of the government in question.
There remains the point regarding which laws take precedence and when? I dont have a one-size-fits-all answer to that. However, I would be very careful about saying that a Paladin would put the laws of his religion over the laws of the land at all times. That would effectively turn him into a fanatic, with some very dark implications. Again, this may be more a question of the Good rather than the Lawful as a LN or LE character would have fewer issues justifying such behaviour.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is such a tangled subject that its hard to make clear points without running into exceptions or inconsistencies.
Lawful characters should be following the laws of their religion (thou shalt not suffer the undead to exist), their personal codes (thou shalt always seat the lady first) and the law of the land (thou shalt not assault another) all at the same time. The confusion happens when those codes are at direct cross purposes, such as entering a city where sentient undead are citizens with rights.
My thoughts are that the Paladin should not disregard the laws of the city he is in if he entered it peacefully. If he wants to ignore the laws he should enter as an aggressor and not a visitor. However, this may be more the Good part of his alignment rather than the Lawful part. This ignores any issues of recognising the legitimacy of the government in question.
There remains the point regarding which laws take precedence and when? I dont have a one-size-fits-all answer to that. However, I would be very careful about saying that a Paladin would put the laws of his religion over the laws of the land at all times. That would effectively turn him into a fanatic, with some very dark implications. Again, this may be more a question of the Good rather than the Lawful as a LN or LE character would have fewer issues justifying such behaviour.
But aren't Paladins fanatics. Isn't that what sets them apart from the average warrior or even cleric that worship the same god. Being a fanatic in and of itself is not a bad thing.
But aren't Paladins fanatics. Isn't that what sets them apart from the average warrior or even cleric that worship the same god. Being a fanatic in and of itself is not a bad thing.This is such a tangled subject that its hard to make clear points without running into exceptions or inconsistencies.
Lawful characters should be following the laws of their religion (thou shalt not suffer the undead to exist), their personal codes (thou shalt always seat the lady first) and the law of the land (thou shalt not assault another) all at the same time. The confusion happens when those codes are at direct cross purposes, such as entering a city where sentient undead are citizens with rights.
My thoughts are that the Paladin should not disregard the laws of the city he is in if he entered it peacefully. If he wants to ignore the laws he should enter as an aggressor and not a visitor. However, this may be more the Good part of his alignment rather than the Lawful part. This ignores any issues of recognising the legitimacy of the government in question.
There remains the point regarding which laws take precedence and when? I dont have a one-size-fits-all answer to that. However, I would be very careful about saying that a Paladin would put the laws of his religion over the laws of the land at all times. That would effectively turn him into a fanatic, with some very dark implications. Again, this may be more a question of the Good rather than the Lawful as a LN or LE character would have fewer issues justifying such behaviour.
"Modern" society views fanatics as bad. Thankfully PFO doesn't use modern rules ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Modern" society views fanatics as bad. Thankfully PFO doesn't use modern rules ;)
But aren't Paladins fanatics. Isn't that what sets them apart from the average warrior or even cleric that worship the same god. Being a fanatic in and of itself is not a bad thing.
This has probably more to do with word use than any real difference in opinion. The words fanatic, zealous and bigot are all synonymous with each other. By definition, they are considered intolerant and/or having an unreasoning enthusiasm for their cause (religious or otherwise).
As such, I would imagine that a fanatic is more along the lines of an inquisitor than a paladin. For example, a fanatical character who's creed states 'Suffer not the undead to live' would stop at nothing to destroy all undead. This would include burning down an inn to get at the undead hiding inside, even if there are also innocents in there. This makes perfect sense for him because his laws (divinely ordained or not) take precedence over all other concerns. I see this as an extreme form of Lawful Neutral.
What sets apart Lawful Good is their use of compassion. So beyond just following their laws, they will also try and apply them in a way that causes the least harm and the most good. Under exceptional circumstances where a Paladin is forced to choose between good or law, the Paladin should put the cause of good over the cause of law as breaking the law may require an act of repentance but an act of evil will strip the Paladin of his powers.
For those who have read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, the Whitecloaks would be an example of a LN organisation that considers itself LG.